< May 2007	July 2007 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Phenomenally a vanity category, somewhat élitist and utterly useless to the project. Sorry! Alison ☺ 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (and I know my iPhones)[reply]

Close and take it to WP:UCFD. Otto4711 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here as suggested above. --Bduke 10:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no collaborative purpose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - collaboration would be better served through the single relevant article's talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course. Shalom ^Hello 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With very exceptions, ownership of a product does not imply an above average ability or desire to edit articles related to that product. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cmon you have to let Swatjester show off! How about "Wikipedian interviewed by the New York Times"? LOL -- Y not? 23:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not myspace. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because I am lucky my phone has twelve buttons. This cat is useless. --wpktsfs 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what phone you use has no possible collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity category. Feed this cat to the dogs... ;)--Ramdrake 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One user, no collaborative possibilities. Another userbox with an appended (unnecessary) category. Horologium t-c 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, serves no collaborative purpose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is actually to store all of the alma mater categories into one main family. - Presidentman 11:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves as a parent category to hundreds/thousands of useful categories. These are incredibly useful for collaboration on school and university articles and I myself have used them in the past for collaboration. --- RockMFR 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves as basic information about a user, allowing collaboration on an obvious subject.--Mike Selinker 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per JDG and RockMFR. JRG 03:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all of the above. It quite clearly does provide a basis for collaboration. --Bduke 09:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I also meant all the subcats. I thought that was implied, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NEVER ASSUME that ANYTHING is implied. Always assume your audience is composed of idiots who can't infer anything for themselves. Morgan Wick 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not touching this one... --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good topic for a new essay: Wikipedia: Assume good stupidity--WaltCip 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there is WP:ASS. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, I can't see what purpose this might serve. Riana (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're surrounded by it.--WaltCip 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is comparable to the "religion" debate from last weak, without the loaded baggage. This system of university listings has been established over years, and too many users find in meaningful to just throw it away. And of course there is the weak argument that alma maters of University X will want to collaborate on University X articles. Shalom ^Hello 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves an obvious collaborative purpose of connecting people who went to the same school. On top of that, there's the less legalistic and more realistic concern that people might just be interested in organizing categories like this on Wikipedia. To delete it would be to etch off the harmless hard work of a few like-minded people, to smash a sandcastle. Or break a butterfly on a wheel. Or what have you. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. We're not myspace. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Bona fide collaborative potential (as per RockMFRM and Mike Selinker) should trump WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. WP:NOT#SOCIALNET should only be invoked in the absence of any real potential for collaboration, which is obviously not the case here.--Ramdrake 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The potential for collaboration here is enormous, considering the number of subcats contained within. Unlike a lot of the userbox-related cats, which often imply only a causal association with the subject, someone who graduated from a particular university is going to possess more than just trivial knowledge of their school. Horologium t-c 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The people saying "a lot of people find this meaningful" need to go read WP:EFFORT. Morgan Wick 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smash this sandcastle. You don't need a category to collaborate. --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went back and forth on this one for a while. There are some universities, MIT for example, that have complicated set of sub-articles; but I think that most universities only consist of a single page with perhaps a related page for its sports teams (UConn's a good example). I think that for most articles about universities/colleges, collaboration would be more efficient by using the talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many people identify more with their alma mater than with the city or state they are currently living in. Unless you propose to delete ALL "Wikipedian by X" categories, I can't see jettisoning this one. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per precedent. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User cs-0
Category:User ig-0
Category:User nd-0
Category:User sn-0
Category:User tg-0

Looks like someone didn't get the memo that 0-level categories were all deleted before. All should probably be speedied, listing for another admin to verify. VegaDark (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE No collaborative purpose. Baring that, merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga. -- Jelly Soup 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per your alternate suggestion. Bladestorm 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 03:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - interested in, yes. Ambiguous "like", notso much. --Haemo 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per nom. Horologium t-c 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why we should merge Wikipedians who have simply stated in a userbox that they watch/read anime/manga into the category for Wikipedians that collaborate on these articles, when they have added themselves by their own choice. When someone goes searching for help in a user category, it would be useful if they actually found someone who works in the articles, and these people are not necessarily that. This would dilute Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga's usefulness. Better to delete outright and allow the original members to add themselves to the "interested" category of their own accord. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that a large majority of users under "interested" are also under the other two categories. That mixed with Dmcdevit's comments leads me to believe that deletion would be the best option. -- Jelly Soup 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the both of them. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to know who is interested in what, only who is able and willing to contribute. Users who fall under this category should join WikiProject Anime and manga and collaborate there. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. --Kbdank71 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Enthusiasts are needed to improve the quality of the articles on Anime and Manga at Wikipedia, so a category would help with collaboration. Furthermore, people who are interested in one are generally interested in the other (to some varying degree) as the two forms of media are inexorably entangled with eachother. One category should be more than enough. אמר Steve Caruso 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. Merging will dilute the usefulness of the target category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right on this one. Too narrow. DGG 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is pretty much unambiguous. --Haemo 08:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. As for the above comment, this category does not include any users (let alone "a number"). It includes only the template. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Category is empty. Even the creator doesn't use the userbox. Horologium t-c 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. under the same rationale used to delete Category:Wikipedians who visit countries. Same idea, smaller scale. Horologium t-c 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the next above. --Haemo 08:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would nearly include all American Wikipedians by default, as Americans can visit a different state anytime they go on the interstate or U.S. Highway system. - Presidentman 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not useful for collaboration, only two members in group (and three userbox pages). Horologium t-c 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Might be useful if better populated, since it is relevant to editing. DGG 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category "Wikipedian qualified to have a useful opinion on the subject" is probably about as populated as this one; and I doubt there's any overlap. --Haemo 08:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any category that begins "Wikipedians who think..." anything is on shaky ground. Don't people know that Wikipedians don't think?? :) ... Shalom ^Hello 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreeing with Haemo, this group is unlikely to serve any purpose since members' opinions probably have little relevance with their knowledge and ability to contribute on the subject. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this category somewhat shares the same structure as Category:Wikipedians who believe all races are one. I can see the collaborative aim of this cat, but the concept of Many-worlds interpretation is not very popular outside physics community, so the cat is in under-populated state. I suggest changing the title to Category:Wikipedians who believe the many worlds interpretation is true which makes more sense. A W 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I concur with AW name modification suggestion. The theory is starting to see widespread use in works of entertainment, the cat makes constructive collaboration on those articles more likely. Also I don't think we have a lot of people with knowledge of quantam physics running around wikipedia. If a group has enough knowledge of it to view one sub-theory as true, the members have enough knowledge and motivation to contribute to other articles. There is definite collaborative use for this category.Horrorshowj 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful, only one person in group. Horologium t-c 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one, unlike Category:Wikipedians who survived Philmont is not a basis for collaboration, and is redundant with that category. --Bduke 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no help. A W 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a group to which everyone should belong. Non-collaborative and can be expressed solely through the userbox. Horologium t-c 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone should leave an edit summary. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hdt83. --Haemo 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To summarize:ILIKEIT. People on both sides of the iisue need to stop with photocopier-style !votes. Horologium t-c 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium - I'm just trying to balance things out here. There are at least 3 Deletionists leaving these bot-like votes, so we need a little Inclusionist action here. User:Bduke left me a rather snitty message to the effect I was doing more harm than good. That message prompted me to peek back to this page and, lo, while there were almost no Keep votes in any of these subcats when I was wearing out my ctrl - v keys the other day, now there are plenty. I feel like Johnny Appleseed. JDG 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to you on your talk page. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your characterization of me. Horologium t-c 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is true that everyone should be in this category, the vast majority could not be. Have a look through recent changes if you don't believe me. The collaborative purpose is to improve observation of WP:HOW and the Manual of Style, if that isn't a valid reason for a user category/template, I don't know what is. Adam McCormick 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does this category improve observation of WP:HOW and WP:MoS? I agree with you that far too many people don't use edit summaries correctly (or at all), but this category does nothing to correct the problem. It's fundamentally a supercilious and somewhat sanctimonious "I'm better than the unwashed masses" category that does nothing to further collaboration. If you want to increase usage of edit summaries, push for a change that would require all editors to include an edit summary with each edit. This category is not going to accomplish that goal, however. Horologium t-c 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It improves them the same way leaving a message on a talk page does, by creating community recognition of those who follow the rule and the best practices. What does having Barnstars accomplish if not to reinforce that the community values those that follow the guidelines to the best of their ability. I would much rather enchourage the right choice and leave it up to each individual editor than to force everyone to leave an edit summary. I want to increase the spirit of cooperation that leads to edit summaries and to help people see what edit summaries are good for. The userbox itself doesn't accomplish that goal, but it does encourage it. You say it does nothing to facilitate collaboration but I put it to you, would you rather collaborate with someone who is concientous enough to summarize all their edits or someone who doesn't believe that helping other editors is worth their time? I'm sorry you percieve following the rules and guidelines as sanctimonious but I'd prefer to celebrate those who follow them to the letter. Adam McCormick 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that we are not discussing the userbox, which would remain after the category is deleted, don't you? (Userbox deletion would be discussed at WP:MFD.) The category itself is not useful for collaboration, because nobody is going to look for people who use the edit summary block to work together on an article, especially since there are only two people in the category. Horologium t-c 12:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pandering to me. Yes, I thouroughly understand that this is a category being deleted, but as I created the box and category in tandem, it's a bit hard for me to seperate them. Under the argument that there just aren't enough people in the category, I'm fine with this being deleted, but "Previous Deletion" is a CSD category and so I would not want to be kept from recreating the category should (significantly) more users add the box to their pages. Adam McCormick 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attempt to pander on my part; when you started discussing the userbox, an alarm went off in my head; there are a lot of people who don't realize that deleting the category does not delete the userbox as well. As to the category being recreated, I think my position on the category should be manifestly obvious from my earlier response, but if some 50 or more users were to add the userbox, that might be sufficient justification to bring the subject up for discussion; if you were to recreate it, I would strongly suggest that you add something on the talk page addressing the issue, so that if an editor adds a speedy tag, he will see the note in place. I still believe that the category does not have a place, regardless of the number of users in the category, but I am not the be-all and end-all of what does and does not belong here. Horologium t-c 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Edit summaries should be a given, everyone should use them. --wpktsfs 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Should" being the operative word, most edits don't have them Adam McCormick 03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stated purpose of this category is "community recognition" of those who always use edit summaries. While that is certainly a good goal, I do not believe that the category system is the appropriate venue. Barnstars are (or should be) a rather informal system of recognition where one editor commends another. In this case, an editor would have to add him or herself to the category and there is no interaction between users. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice sentiment, but not useful for collaboration and can be expressed through a userbox. Horologium t-c 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do, but I don't think a category helps me with this, or writing an encyclopedia. --Haemo 08:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop copying vote. A W 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, userbox is enough. A W 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potentially divisive, non-collaborative, can be expressed through the userbox. Horologium t-c 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JDG. And how anyone could suggest this is divisive is beyond me. Let's leave this as is. JRG 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might have a purpose on Wikisource, which hosts at least three Bible translations into English - but not here. Shalom ^Hello 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; furthermore, any reason why you haven't just nominated the majority of Wikipedians by website for deletion under the same reason? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a userbox category. No collaboration potential. Horologium t-c 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the users in this category are there because they added the userbox, which categorised them automatically. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- JDG took the words out of my mouth on this one. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JDG – it's the business of wikipedians to regulate the encyclopedia, not each other. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see the potential utility of a category for users who have travelled extensively around certain areas, but "all of the US states" is quite arbitrary. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Visiting a state does not endow one with an improved ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it nor necessarily any kind of interest in the state. The breadth of this category (all U.S. states) makes it doubly unusable. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unpopulated. - Presidentman 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I might want to start the "Users who have been to every provence in Canada" cat, Wikipedia is not myspace. --wpktsfs 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under the same rationale used to delete Category:Wikipedians who visit countries. Same concept, smaller scale. Horologium t-c 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good argument by Horologium. Shalom ^Hello 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too peddling. A W 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a subcat in Category:Wikipedians by religion. It should already be marked for deletion. Horologium t-c 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to precedent mentioned by Horologium - decision has been made to remove "beliefs" categories. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a "not" category, and it's not useful as a consequence. Horologium t-c 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New name for a book exchange, but not something that has any collaborative potential beyond the one article. The experience can be expressed with a userbox. Horologium t-c 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The sole member is already in the parent category, so a merge is not necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no potential for collaboration; can be expressed through a userbox. Horologium t-c 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into parent - Only one member, the cat's creator, and it's been that way for months. Would have some potential if it actually had some members.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This is completely unhelpful and indiscriminate, like the handedness and gender categories which were previously deleted. No potential for collaboration. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the order of 97% of all humans fall into this category. Being heterosexual serves no conceivable collaborative purpose. --Haemo 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think 90-95% is more accurate, but the principle still stands. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I'd like to note that a serious storm will be kicked up if the opposing categories are nominated, especially since there is already a WikiProject in place. Deleting this cat is likely to instigate a rather WP:POINTish nomination of the LGBT cats. It's not going to be from me, but almost certainly somebody will do so, using this as precedent. Just something for participants in this discussion to consider. Horologium t-c 01:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the problem. Categorizing based on homosexuality is no more useful for collaboration than heterosexuality. I don't think it would be disruptive to nominate them. Dmcdevit·t 03:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I more-or-less agree with you, insofar as there is a (very large, active and well-run) WikiProject in place. However, I think that suggesting deletion of those cats is going to encounter opposition. There is a good deal of duplication, overlap and interlinking in that subcat (which should be addressed, and really shouldn't be that controversial) but unlike the Hetero cat, which is useless for collaboration, many of the various LGBT cats can be useful. There are a lot of LGBT sub-cultures that don't have much in common except for their sexual orientation, and a Lipstick lesbian is most likely not going to be able to contribute much to a discussion about the Bear Community (to choose two wildly divergent and currently extant subcats). Horologium t-c 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is impossible. Anybody who's not in this category is considered automatically gay or bi! This doesn't work one bit.--WaltCip 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No way this could be used to build the encyclopedia. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This will leave a gap in the parent Category:Wikipedians by sexuality meaning someone will come along and re-create this category again just to rebalance the parent cat. Perhaps Wikipedians by sexuality should also be deleted or renamed? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would contain the majority of all users by default, so it is not useful. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Who are you people to restrict terms Wikipedians choose to define themselves with? The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. I am for almost pure "libertarianism" on all non-encyc pages, and for strict quality control of encyc. pages. You folks are mixing up the two and are trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here is restrict terms with which Wikipedians choose to define themselves. Categories are not about self-definition; they are about grouping pages. Anyone is free to define oneself as they choose on the text of their user page. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand this - the precedence that we have based the user category nominations on for the past year: we categorize for CATEGORIZATION, not for SELF-IDENTITY. You seem to dislike the whole UCFD process altogether. Why not nominate WP:UCFD for deletion, then, if you feel it so unjust?--WaltCip 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least re-name to "Wikipedians interested in BDSM". --Haemo 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename per Haemo. -- Jelly Soup 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or rename per Haemo~~. It may be interesting to know that someone is kinky, but not particularly relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am striking my suggestion to rename for the reason that being X does is not equivalent to being interested in X (e.g., someone who is married is not necessarily interested in editing marriage-related articles). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rename is not a good idea; not all kinky sex is BDSM-related. If there is enough support, someone can create a WikiProject for "Alternative Sexuality" or something along those lines. Horologium t-c 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Many members of the Wiki-community are Trans and do not want to be Male. This people find it painful. --Brianna Goldberg 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Transsexual Wikipedians is the larger, more appropriate group. Nobody has proposed deleting that group. Horologium t-c 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia isn't a support group. --Kbdank71 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a "wish" category. People wish to have, be, or not be many things, but none of them are relevant to building an encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Black Falcon.Horologium t-c 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Creates precedent for any other "wish" category. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh, darn, this quest to rid Wikipedia of any inter-affiliation is so tiresome. There are plenty of people with gender dysphoria who would not consider themselves transsexuals, for a multitude of reasons. Some people also use this tag alongside 'wishes not to be female', because they affiliate themselves with neither gender. If the nominators are so concerned about 'wishing,' perhaps the category could be renamed to Wikipedians with gender dysphoria. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Black Falcon tells it all. A W 13:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is a very popular e-mail service. - Presidentman 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment-shall we start categories for people who eat very popular brands of pickles? How about people who use very popular brands of toothpaste? If we keep this, it should be merged into Category:Wikipedians who use Windows Vista, as it is a subset of that group. Windows Live Mail only runs on Vista systems. Horologium t-c

Delete - Its simpler in this case for editors to collaborate via the single relevant article's talk page rather than via a category.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator, Elipongo, and my comment above. If kept, should be merged. Horologium t-c 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using a general product does not mean one can contribute encyclopedic content about it (remember, no original research). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete popular software categories. - Presidentman 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard for user categories is whether they hold collaborative potential. Content contributions to article should be supported by reliable sources on the subject; the simple fact of using a given software does not give users access to such sources, knowledge of such sources, or even a desire to search for such sources. I see no reason to retain this category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Black Falcon. Collaboration can be accomplished on the KDE talk page. Horologium t-c 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep (with a nod to Booyabazooka's idea for reorganization). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Flash, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Illustrator, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe InDesign, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Photoshop

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Photoshop category is one of the most useful collaborative categories we have. These users have experience using Photoshop and can be extremely helpful when dealing with images. --- RockMFR 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per RockMFR. If I had to get an image fixed beyond what I was capable of, this cat would be where I looked. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with RockMFR on this one. This is an example of a category that can be used to further the encyclopedia. Horologium t-c 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per RockMFR. - Presidentman 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR and Hologrium. This category is directly relevant to a skill that can be used for improving the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent category only - I object to how these categories are organized. Does it really matter that these four products are made by Adobe? I think it would be much more useful to follow the model set by Category:Wikipedians by text editor and create a category such as Category:Wikipedians by graphics editor. Pulling these into an Adobe category doesn't hold any significant meaning for our purposes. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be a bad idea. Either way, it's just an organizational decision. Either we'll have one category in Category:Wikipedians by software or four. --- RockMFR 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RockMFR. --wpktsfs 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question: any reason why this category is named three times?--Ramdrake 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing other than my error. Thank you for cleaning it up for me. Dmcdevit·t 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard for categories should be whether they are at all useful for encyclopedic collaboration. A category for users who "know how to report spam to blocklisters" is not particularly useful. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Collaboration can be accomplished through the talk page; category is too limited. Horologium t-c 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently too limited in scope, as it appears to offer help collaborating on only one article; the purpose is better served by a glance at history and talk. We could even categorize people by whether they prefer to play as certain races or factions, in RTS games, but if we're looking for collaborative usefulness, even categorizing people by single games seems excessive, in nine out of ten cases. Perhaps by series or genre. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Collaboration can be accomplished through the talk page of the one article. Category is too limited. Horologium t-c 01:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Although there are few comments, the extremely narrow focus of this category is an important consideration as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too narrow in scope, effectively limited to one article only. I remember playing this game, I think it's great, but if I'd like to know which other Wikipedians are interested in helping with the Kingdom of Loathing article, it'll be a lot easier for me to find them using the history tab and the talk page, wouldn't you say? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mike's earnest copy-pasting aside, the argument doesn't seem to apply -- UCFD is, on the grand scheme of things, a very new process, and it's likely that several of these other categories he's alluding to will, at some point, be discussed here. The usefulness of this particular category appears to be limited to one article, and a quick peek at an article history page will tell us more than a category with two users in it. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This helps with collaboration on our many Sega Genesis articles. Yes, we have broad WikiProjects, but their member categories aren't very helpful when it comes to specific systems. --- RockMFR 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have categories for many game systems, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many websites, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is for users who "have an account on Rate Your Music." OK ... so what? How is this useful for encyclopedia-building. Aside from the fact that any potential usefulness of this category is limited to one article only, Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites. Also, the existence of other potentially equally inappropriate categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have categories for many websites, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is it useful to know whether another user has an account on another website? Also, the category includes only one user. Finally, the existence of similar (potentially equally inappropriate) categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Category is already empty. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hanuman devotees, or just delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of the category, give full Support to rename this category.

ARUNKUMAR P.R 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by religion. Being a member of a religion does not endow one with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about that religion. Also, religious categories are potentially divisive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename perhaps to Wikipedians interested in Hanuman. It still may be a little specific but I hoping to find more people to collaborate on Hanuman-related (ie. The Hindu epic Ramayana related) articles. Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would require changing the text of the userbox. Someone who is a "Hanuman devotee" is not necessarily interested in editing articles related to Hanuman. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't mind if someone changed the text. At the moment, it doesn't serve too much purpose. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Are we seriously going to have a "Category:X devotees" for all 33 million forms of God in Hinduism? Baka man 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Broaden or delete If the creator wants to keep the userbox as it is, I prefer deletion of the category. If the text in the userbox changes to User interested in the Ramayana I would like to keep the category as a useful tool for finding users to improve Ramayana (which includes Hanuman and more) articles. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My knowledge of Hinduism is practically nil, but I noticed a large number of very thinly populated Hindu categories when I went through and untagged all of the religion cats that were tagged during the big CFD. Would it be out of line to suggest merging all of them into a single Hindu category? This is not intended to be snide or to disparage anyone's beliefs, but a polytheistic religion like this can end up very fractured (and thus an obvious target for deletion) but a single unified category might work. It might also facilitate a degree of collaboration that currently does not exist. I realize that it may require some alterations to the userboxen, but that is an easy fix. Horologium t-c 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a no-brainer (pun intended). Joke categories are not helpful to Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-sense category, which has no redeeming value whatsoever. --Haemo 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. -- Jelly Soup 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedu Delete. Nonsense category; another example of userbox creation spilling over into cats. Horologium t-c 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BRAINS!!!! per nom.--WaltCip 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DEATH Death to the zombies! Wait, aren't they undead? I'm confused, anyway speedy delete. Nonsense. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A make-believe categorization can't help build the encyclopedia. It should also be noted that this category is an orphan, it's recursively listed as its own parent. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong naming convention, not to mention useless. VegaDark (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using an email client is very general, and does not imply any level of expertise in subject matter. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another category with only one user. Not useful for collaboration. Horologium t-c 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a Dilbert joke, not a collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I stated below. —MJCdetroit 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no collaborative purpose. It's a broad, general, attribute with no clear expertise involved. The fact that it might make Wikipedia more "fun" is not a reason to keep it. --Haemo 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until the U.S.A. undergoes full metrication this category will be too broad. When the day comes that it is rare to find people who know that a pint's a Pound the world round, we can revive it. (Oh wait, that's United States customary units, but you get the point anyway) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. And everyone knows that the real meaning of life is 42. MER-C 09:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category namespace is not the place to espouse one's personal beliefs. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - literally billions of people do this. It's too general to ever serve a collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See my comment below for Wikipedians who keep kosher but fill in Halal related articles instead. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly suggest centralizing the discussion in the "kosher" section immediately below. --Eliyak T·C 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not such a good idea. While the concepts are similar, the religious beliefs behind them are quite different, and moving a muslim who observes Halal into a category describing Jewish dietary restrictions might be seen as insulting or needlessly provocative. My suggestion for this is Keep. I would recommend a delete before a merge for this cat. Horologium t-c 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I only wanted to centralize the discussion. Obviously the categories are not identical. --Eliyak T·C 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A reasonable user preference category, and an exception to the "no foods" dictum from a year back.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consistently with the kosher cat below. -- Y not? 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher and merge Category:Wikipedians who keep Kosher (capitalised) into it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This has no collaborative pottential. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who keep Kosher added to this nom (note caps). --- RockMFR 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see my comment on Halal. --Haemo 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & merge - There shouldn't be two categories, but there is plenty of collaborative potential for articles such as Kosher foods, Kashrut, Hechsher, Kosher tax, Mashgiach, Kosher wine, Cholov Yisroel, Glatt, etc. ad nauseam. Kashrut can be a complicated and confusing subject and being able to find others who know and keep those laws can aid greatly in improving the many articles that relate to the subject. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Using a userbox that announces adherence to a set of dietary rules is not the same as contributing to the articles, or even being knowledgeable in the topic. If I were looking for collaborators, I'd go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture. Dmcdevit·t 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Unless they changed the relevant userboxen since last I looked (admittedly a while back) this category isn't included in them.~~ I had to specifically add it to my user cats on the bottom of my user page. As to making an inquiry at WP:JEWC, you may not realize this but many (and if I may be so bold as to say, most) Jews don't keep Kosher at all. Many who do only do so to a limited extent. Those who have a good working knowledge of Kashrut aren't as common as it may seem at first; especially if you yourself live in one of those cities where there happen to be many observant Jews. Frankly this user category is indeed the fastest and easiest way for Kashrut knowledgeable people to find each other for collaboration or for someone to find us to pose a query. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was wrong about the userbox, Template:User kosher includes it. My mistake. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per Elipongo. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. -- Jelly Soup 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ——Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & merge I came to vote delete, but was convinced by Elipongo's reasoning. Kashrut can be an opaque and confusing system, and I very much expect that people who practice it know substantially more than others about its various intricacies. This is useful for collaboration. nadav (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge, per Elipongo. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge as per Elipongo. Horologium t-c 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reasonable user preference category, and an exception to the "no foods" dictum from a year back. (What is the "Merge" referring to?)--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This has no redeeming value. Dmcdevit·t 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Riana (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No collaborative potential; can be expressed via userbox. Horologium t-c 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this category could be used to build the encyclopedia; besides Jeeves is already beyond saving.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tim Q. Wells 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. This has no redeeming value. Dmcdevit·t 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Riana (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "wanting" to live somewhere cannot help anyone, ever, improve the encyclopedia. --Haemo 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Haemo. Horologium t-c 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYSPACE. As with Category:Left-handed Wikipedians and Category:Right-handed Wikipedians, this has no redeeming value. Dmcdevit·t 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- None of these types of categories has any particular value to Wikipedia, but they do have value to Wikipedians. The erosion of all these encyclopedially-irrelevant, yet socially-interesting categories is taking some of the fun out of being a Wikipedian, and may result in a gradual exodus of valuable editors. I cannot offer any reason why this category in particular is more important to keep than others of a similar ilk, but I give this "vote" on the basis that I am opposed to the removal of such categories in general, and I'm a mixed-handed Wikipedian! -- Scjessey 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are conflating the category with the user page. No one is limiting your self expression, but you don't need a category for that. Dmcdevit·t 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --I completely agree with Scjessey. Yes I do know the difference between categories and user space. If you take the "fun" (as scjessey put it) and interesting quirks away from wikipedia; you'll only make it a sterile, dull place. Unless the category is somehow divisive (which none of these seem to be), then I don't see the harm in keeping them. Go find something else to delete like this: Tossed salad. —MJCdetroit 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I was uncler. My point was that deleting a categry does not take the fun out of anything. You can still say this on your user page, without the useless category. How does the category make it less dull? Dmcdevit·t 06:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of dmcdevit's nominations in today's log. They are indiscriminate user categories with no practical value. I'm not too concerned about social communication between users that the categories might enable. Shalom ^Hello 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Knowing who is mixed handed or not is not helpful to any aspect of wikipedia in the least. If users wish to have this information, they can do it on their userpage. Having a category is pointless. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being "fun" or "social" is not the point of a userpage. This is an encyclopedia, not Myspace. --Haemo 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "None of these types of categories has any particular value to Wikipedia". Enough said. MER-C 09:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hey, everybody! Let's play "User Category"! Let's all come up with a funny category, and everybody will join it and have fun and laugh! ... See how LOW we're getting when we have to resort to THIS kind of "social gratification"? --WaltCip 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Dmcdevit, and Shalom. Horologium t-c 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one user in the category. No real purpose to aid in collaboration. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category barely makes sense, let alone serves any collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a one-user category with no article links. Interest in (whatever) game can be expressed through the three userboxen created by the user for this topic. Horologium t-c 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has ~~one user in it.~~ --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has more than one user in it > Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using a given music player is a very general activity which belies no special expertise in the subject matter. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Haemo. If there are categories for Winamp, QuickTime, RealPlayer, Rhapsody, or any others, they should go too. (The ITunes cats just got nuked.) Horologium t-c 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, there are NO users in this group; the "one member" is itself (it's a member of its own group). A little recursion seems to be common with many of these less useful categories. Horologium t-c 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no collaborative merit, and empty to boot. --Haemo 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
&Delete only 5 users.DGG 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Belated signature, — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who love cats, Category:Wikipedians who love horses, Category:Wikipedians who own Tamagotchis, Category:Wikipedians who own birds, Category:Wikipedians who own cats, Category:Wikipedians who own cockroaches, Category:Wikipedians who love dogs, Category:Wikipedians who own dogs, Category:Wikipedians who own fish, Category:Wikipedians who own guinea pigs

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a great many WPedians in this set of categories, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. I don't use boxes of this sort, but i don't see why I should interfere with those who do unless there is a good reason. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. DGG
Keep. I see no reason how this category makes Wikipedia more like a Myspace. Suppose, for instance, I would like to verify information on the Cockroach article that may need some personal experience. A category sure beats sifting through a whole bunch of userboxen looking for someone who has a cockroach for a pet. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we cannot "verify information" by requesting personal anecdotes from someone with them. That's directly contrary to verifiability guidelines --Haemo 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Having a pet is no more collaborative than having a child. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Knowing who "owns" or "loves" certian animals is absolutely useless to Wikipedia. If people want to collaborate on articles relating to these animals, they should have an appropriately named category, such as "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on cat related topics". VegaDark (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Better yet, have them join some children WikiProjects of WikiProject Mammals. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 04.07.07 1942 (UTC)
Delete all per above. No collaborative potential, asking these people for information regarding pets would be original research. MER-C 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per MER-C. Category:Wikipedians interested in dogs and the like are valid categories, but owning or loving a pet does not imply an interest in editing articles related to it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no purpose of collaboration, especially the "cockroaches" one. A W 13:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think only professionals would need to be consulted.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are many WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; 184 think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect Dmcdevit, Cordesat, , Flonight, or me. DGG 23:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing table football is a very general activity which millions of people do. It belies no special expertise or incentive to contribute to an encyclopedia. No collaborative merit. Oh, and I believe that ensuring that Wikipedia does not begin the slow slide into becoming a social networking site based around an encyclopedia is a very good thing to be doing. --Haemo 09:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages in Category:Alternate reality games can get out of hand when a particular game is active and people want to spread every minor clue or speculative material that exists. Any users in it may be consulted as potentially familiar with the notability of individual ARGs at AfD. There's only one user because s/he has not listed it on userbox pages for others to see. –Pomte 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete un-needed overlap with the individual games. just one user. DGG 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has two users in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, personal opinions add no validity to any contribution you might make.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are many WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; 277 think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect Dmcdevit, Cordesat, Esprit15d, Flonight, or me. DGG 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DGG, it *is* divisive; I, for one, do not support many of the aims of Amnesty International, nor do I appreciate their criticism of my country for its application of the death penalty, something which is supported by a sizable majority. I don't advoate deleting the userbox (I find it irritating, like many, but what people put on their personal page is their business), but this spills over into the rest of the project, when it should be confined to user pages (and only user pages). Horologium t-c 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - supporting an organization is a very general thing, and belies no special expertise or incentive to contribute to articles about it, or anything else. Has no collaborative merit -- I also feel that preventing Wikipedia from becoming a social networking site is a very good thing to be doing. --Haemo 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP has had to some extent the role of a social networking site since the day it began; you are of course completely right that it should be much more than a social networking site, and appropriately this element is a very small portion of WP. I don't think these categories put it into danger. DGG 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as DGG. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as: 1)not a likely source of social networking, if any, 2) some of the supporters of this organization may be very cognizant about it and 3)supporting Amnesty International as a category may help POV situations by disclosing up front a potentially significant ideological position.--Ramdrake 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fine as a userbox, lousy as a category. The "ideological disclosure" cited by Ramdrake can be expressed through a userbox. This should have been deleted with all of the other political categories. Horologium t-c 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1)The "other political categories" (I take it you mean Wikipedians by political ideology) in fact didn't get deleted so your argument is void 2)There are people opposed to having userboxes on their user page and who will use categories instead. What is wrong with giving users a choice?--Ramdrake 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) Hologrium's argument is not void as long as he or she believes the other political categories should have been deleted. In fact, the argument is contained primarily in the first two sentences. (2) There are no users in this category. It is a parent category for one other category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, raising another category as an example when in fact that category was kept is kind of a counter-example to me. If the other category should serve as an example, I see that it would be an argument to keep it.--Ramdrake 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a variation on Wikipedians by politics, which does allow for collaboration.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a "support" category and for an organisation whose actions are controversial. It is essentially a less divisive version of something like Category:Wikipedians who support the Provisional Irish Republican Army. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you mean you consider Amnesty International as some sort of paramilitary organization??? I see a world of difference between the two; I would even venture that Amnesty International is possibly less controversial than PeTA.--Ramdrake 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hehe ... of course not. I view AI to be an organisation whose actions are controversial for many, not unlike the IRA or PETA. Now, it may be less controversial than PETA or the IRA, but it's still controversial. I support AI, but I also recognise that many dislike it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the precision. However, I can't help but wonder what makes people think controversial==divisive. That's not obvious to me. But that's a philosphical discussion for another place and time. :)--Ramdrake 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - same as above. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm ... I recommended deleting the category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great userbox, lousy category. Should have been deleted with all of the other political categories. Horologium t-c 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep 3 eds. think it has no purpose--199 think otherwise. Rampant paternalism. DGG 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a "not" category; and "rampant paternalism" is not a reason to keep an article; voting is evil. --Haemo 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ever hear of "blind following the blind" DGG?--WaltCip 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Though I oppose the unprofessional manner in which it was nominated, and though I think it would make a very good userbox, I really can't see any significant collaborative potential here. Bladestorm 18:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fine as a userbox, lousy category. How does this aid collaboration? The premise behind the category is fundamentally a political statement, and this should have been deleted with all of the other political cats. Horologium t-c 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has two users in it. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too broad to be collaborative. Actually just an "other" category.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, broad, subjective, useless. --Xiaphias 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two users only, and not a very obvious category. It's defined only as "not libertarian".DGG 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undefined category (not linked to an article) with only two members. Not category, as stated in category page. Horologium t-c 11:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like an actual explanation of exactly how this harms the encyclopedia. Those who find such categories to serve a purpose needn't use them. If we made everyone vote yes or no when they joined, only then would it be excessive. DGG 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- WP:NOHARM is not a valid inclusion criterion. --Haemo 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- strike, disregard, and discount the WP:NOHARM vote W.E.P.--WaltCip 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use Dvorak keyboards, Category:Wikipedians who use Plum keyboards, Category:Wikipedians who use TypeMatrix keyboards

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fortunately, WP is not bounded by one editor's imagination. I see those using Dvorak keyboards a being a particular type of people, ultra-rational/geeky/willing to be out of step in an obvious way, and it can be very useful to bring their view of things into a discussion. The lack of imagination of those who give the same arguments every time does perhaps seem a little noticeable. Perhaps they should go in a (hopefully small) category. (non-serious) DGG 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using a particular keyboard belies no special skills or merits beyond using a keyboard of that type. Assertions that we can stereotype people in a way which would be sufficient to provide any merit whatsoever based on their choice of keyboard defies all common sense and is probably offensive to boot. I know I wouldn't like being labeled a "geek" because I use a particular keyboard type, and I definitely wouldn't want Wikipedia keeping a category because they endorse that characterization. --Haemo 09:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per Haemo. I was not going to !vote on this until I saw DGG's comment and Haemo's response. DONOHARM indeed. Horologium t-c 18:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who contribute in cybercafés, Category:Wikipedians who use AOL, Category:Wikipedians who use COX High Speed Internet, Category:Wikipedians who use Rogers Internet, Category:Wikipedians who use Sprint Mobile Broadband, Category:Wikipedians who use WightCableNorth Internet

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incredibly trivial, and in no way allows users to work together. --Haemo 09:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use BitTorrent, Category:Wikipedians who use Gizmo Project, Category:Wikipedians who use Soulseek

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Core desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fun category, for sure, but it's not one that helps the encyclopædia. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 25.06.07 0354 (UTC)

Delete, considering this is illegal an arguably unsettling, such a collaboration (if any) should be discouraged..--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pyromania isn't illegal. --Xiaphias 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well arson is, which this usual leads to, hence the disorder. This isn't talking about candle burners.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesnt actually advocate setting fires, just a light touch. Good for the encyclopedia. DGG 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is being a pyromaniac, arsonist or not, good for the encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 14:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the "light touch" noted by DGG is a valid point, but also believe that the userbox (without the category) serves that role adequately. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:User cs. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:User cs, convention of Category:Wikipedians by language, see also List of ISO 639-1 codes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, no reason for duplication. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 25.06.07 0359 (UTC)
Merge as incorrect code. –Pomte 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Use only standard ISO cats for languages. Horologium t-c 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 08:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bhadani (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This shows wikipedians that are interested on contributing in relevant sections about video game music. Such category can help cooperative works. This isn't pointing to any likes or dislikes. E&M ^(talk) 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every VG featured article has or needs an audio section, plus we have many articles devoted to video game music and soundtracks. Certainly can help collaboration. --- RockMFR 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that is why I would contact someone in Category:WikiProject Video games members for help, not someone who merely states they listen to it, without any expressed expertise or desire for editing related articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be reasonable to assume that someone who listens to video game music would be more likely to have knowledge of and be interested in collaborating on such articles than someone who is a general member of the WikiProject. Contacting the latter would be a spammy stretch as they in no way implied interest in editing video game music-specific articles. –Pomte 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a wiki. If that category isn't specific enough for you, do something about it. Dmcdevit·t 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a few eds. think it has no purpose--the people who use it think otherwise. Let everyone decide for himself himself. Rampant paternalism. Rule-creep. DGG 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have given no reason why the category is useful. Dmcdevit·t 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Distinctly pointless. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on music choice, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skepticism is quite relevant to encyclopedia building, as we need readers and editors who do not take content at face value. There are many articles for them to collaborate on. Although I'm skeptical of the likelihood of any substantial collaboration, the potential should not be eliminated merely by the above arguments. Wikipedia is not MySpace, but Wikipedia is still a community. There's no evidence that the category is being used for MySpace-y purposes. –Pomte 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed there is evidence. Editors interested in collaborating on skepticism-related articles, a good thing, should populate Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members. Instead, this category is populated by uerboxes like User:One/Userboxes/User skeptic, which do not express interest in collaborating, which is easily done with ((User WikiProject Rational Skepticism)), it expresses a user's personal opinion, skepticism. That is what is Myspacey, and inappropriate, about it. Dmcdevit·t 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it seems the userbox should be deleted as well as the category that comes along with it. Skepticism is not an opinion, and editors are encouraged to put forth their (rational) opinions anyway, especially if it's relevant in some way to the encyclopedia. The users not in the WikiProject should be notified of it if this is deleted. –Pomte 08:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that joining the WikiProject is better, so there is little need for this category. Delete the category but not the user box. --Bduke 07:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Redundant to superior Wikiproject participants category. MER-C 08:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. JoshuaZ 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see why it should bother anyone. Removing for the sake of removing is WP:POINT. I dont want to dictate to other wpedians what has redeeming value or not. DGG 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. Read the above policy stated by the nom before you call a spade a club.--WaltCip 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific to be collaborative. Even too specific for a Wikiproject.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be expressed through a userbox. Only one article for collaboration; can be addressed on article talk page. Horologium t-c 01:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well known cultural event, interpreted loosely, about which there are articles. Collaboration is needed. Merge the other one into here or vice versa. DGG 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Burner Wikipedians. We certainly don't need two of these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be expressed through a userbox. Only one article for collaboration; can be addressed on article talk page. Horologium t-c 01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep there are many relevant articles, so the collaboration opportunities are there.DGG 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Owen 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They may have useful information or perspectives on Deaf culture.--T. Anthony 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per T. Anthony". Users in this category may contribute additional information not known by the general public without it being original research.--Ramdrake 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting this cat would be tantamount to deleting gay Wikipedians. Deaf culture is a distinct culture and being able to collaborate with persons (both deaf and those raised by deaf parents) would be a huge asset both in regards to language, subculture, and physiology - not only in the US, but abroad.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - distinct and important culture. ← ROGER → ^TALK 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the proviso that Category:Wikipedians who are deaf is kept. One category is appropriate, but two is overcategorization. There are very few people who fit into this category that do not also fit into the more general cat. Horologium t-c 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it is unlikely that you will need to be able to hear to contribute to Wikipedia as most of Wikipedia is displayed on a screen which you need to see (except maybe the spoken articles and a couple of media files). --_Hdt83 ^Chat 08:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is very unlikely that you need to be American to contribute to Wikipedia since millions of non-Americans speak English and have access to a "screen," but that cat exists. The same goes for Wikipedians in their 20s, Wikipedian historians and Wikipedian programmers. The categories aren't about ability to use a screen; they're about identifying people who will be able to collaborate and contribute in their areas of access and expertise.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There might be articles on specific conditions that cause deafness and some of these people might be more knowledgeable on that than average.--T. Anthony 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per T.Anthony.--Ramdrake 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per T.Anthony; additionally, if there are any issues (and these may be non-obvious) that affect the ability of deaf Wikipedia editors to contribute, this would potentially be a good index of people willing/able to help those users.--Traumerei 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per T. Anthony. Additionally, being deaf affects language, so this is highly related to Babel. Since there are a variety of sign languages in the world, some of these people might be fluent in more than one (I have deaf friends who are fluent in American Sign Language and Japanese Sign Language), which could be a huge resource - especially if they can quickly find each other and/or be contacted.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Anthony and Traumere. JoshuaZ 14:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Traumerei. --- RockMFR 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per -T. Anthony —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete Category:Deaf Culture Wikipedians. Both categories are not needed, and this one is the more precise category.Horologium t-c 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are two different things. You can be deaf culture and not deaf (raised by deaf parents, for example), and you can be deaf but not deaf culture (deaf who can speak and weren't around other deaf, for example).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per T. Anthony. --Legion 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I can't think of many user categories that would be valuable for collaboration if this one isn't. Bladestorm 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't match any of the aforementioned criteria. // Gargaj 08:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found this category useful in finding other editors interested in demonscene articles, such as those in Category:Demoscene? How many of them have you collaborated with, and to what extent? It would be really informative for this discussion. –Pomte 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so you can create a Wikiproject with it's own non-social networking category. Either way, we shouldn't have social networking categories like this. Delete. MER-C 09:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects often go inactive, and one can do more productive things than to create one. The user category serves as a more direct way for communication. Of all places, I don't see why demosceners would use Wikipedia for social networking. Why would another category called Category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Demoscene suddenly eliminate any potential social networking? –Pomte 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to network, then I go to Pouët, Scene.org or do it via Facebook and not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the latest place I would choose for networking of any kind that goes beyond finding and identifying other editors who are knowledgable about a subject and can help with related articles. My to-do list is already long and the best way to get a subject covered in a new article is to ask for help from somebody who can help and also has probably some interest to actually get his hands dirty and contribute to the article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons that Gargaj stated. I see absolutely no reason to delete this category. It's one of the very few user categories that actually make sense. DiamonDie 09:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a specialized type of media,and we need to know where the experts are. DGG 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject is niche and even more so in the English speaking parts of the world. As DGG already pointed out, this is an important means to find other editors that are familiar with the subject to be able to coordinate efforts to cover this vast but still specialized and niche topic properly in Wikipedia. The category might gets replaced by a full blown project and make the category obsolete, but until then is it everything we have. It is hard enough to get people motivated to contribute to Wikipedia and to coordinate efforts. Don't make it harder by removing the bit structure and organization that exists today --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful as any other user category. Not used for spamming or afd vote gathering, and the rationale of not myspace doesnt apply in this case any more than it applies for Category:User violinists. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep that is, I can't see much use for it because I don;t exactly understand what it signifies, but 18 wikipedians think otherwise. If it's meaningful to them, and it does not harm the encyclopedia, the category should stay.DGG 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep those who find them not useful or not appropriate to their style of interaction should not use them, and vice versa.DGG 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless another solution is found. -- Jelly Soup 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D3l3t3 per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1)31337 per above. No redeeming value, superseded by Category:Wikipedians by programming language. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - same as above. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No redeeming value. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Core desat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a collaborative purpose, ask all these users to verify and contribute to List of social nudity places. There's Timeline of non-sexual social nudity for the academic bunch, and events for the active bunch. –Pomte 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bhadani (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these tend to be hard articles to source, and its good to know where to find help.DGG 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think, though a bit immoral, that DGG is spot-on right; this is a user category where the horse speaks for his master. Keep.--WaltCip 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason why this should be deleted. __meco 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a pretty strong user preference.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was that the duplicate nomination led to little participation. I'll ask Dmcdevit to nominate it again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already listed below, under #June 22. You should probably state your deletion position there. –Pomte 06:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that is a merger proposal. I've pointed up here for the deletion nomination. Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. E&M ^(talk) 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Using an iPod is very general, and will not help anyone collaborate on articles. --Haemo 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need to categorize people who "use" IPods. Rename to "Interested in IPod topics" if you want to collaborate. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Note that this is different from the "Wikipedians by religion" category: whereas it was argues that identifying with a religion offered potential collaborative networks, this category, of Wikipedians who are simply "religious" clearly doe not. As such, it exists solely for social networking. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Being religious is very general, and is too broad to every foster any working together of users. --Haemo 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just as useful, many people have a general religious outlook without specific identification. Just as relevant for editing. DGG 23:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't want a "support" category for every group. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. "Supporting" a standard will not help anyone work together - it implies no expertise, and merely expresses a consumer preference. --Haemo 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't want a "support" category for every technology. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a former member of Category:Wikipedians by technology politics; other members include Category:Wikipedians who support Citizen Media and Category:Wikipedians who oppose regional lockout. Citizen Media might actually be an area people could collaborate on, although I'd prefer we all stay away from advocacy categories. Beyond that, I'd say these should go. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Whoop de doo? I cannot conceive of any purpose where grouping people in this fashion would help the encyclopedia. --Haemo 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing views related to digital rights management. That's what the Electronic Frontier Foundation is for. MER-C 03:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on that, Rename to 'Wikipedians who are interested in Regional Lockout'. -- Jelly Soup 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo. I disagree with the proposal to rename as opposing something does not automatically imply an interest in editing articles related to it. I oppose lots of political ideologies but cannot recall ever having edited an article on one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Supporting peace is simply an expression of someone's preferences -- it doesn't imply any ability, or expertise, in the subject area, and thus cannot be used for collaboration. --Haemo 23:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. If this category was about the Optimists, then it would work. But it's not, it's just about people who are optimistic. This cannot help people work together. --Haemo 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an optimist does not imply any sort of specialised knowledge of or ability to contribute content to articles related to optimism. The category is also too broad to be useful for collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. See my comments on Optimist Wikipedians. --Haemo 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a pessimist does not imply any sort of specialised knowledge of or ability to contribute content to articles related to pessimism. The category is also too broad to be useful for collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No collaborative merit or relevance to encyclopedia-building. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. This article is about people who "favour meritocracy". I cannot see any way this will help people work together. --Haemo 23:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a broad "support" category. Supporting meritocracy doesn't imply any ability or desire to edit articles related to meritocracy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non, Haemo, Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And all subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who like base thirteen, Category:Wikipedians who like binary, Category:Wikipedians who like decimal, Category:Wikipedians who like duodecimal, Category:Wikipedians who like hexadecimal, Category:Wikipedians who like octal, Category:Wikipedians who like quinary, Category:Wikipedians who like senary, Category:Wikipedians who like sexagesimal, Category:Wikipedians who like ternary, Category:Wikipedians who like vigesimal

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all no collaborative merit. Liking a particular base does not help anyone work together. --Haemo 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
0xDE1E7EA11 - no redeeming encyclopedic value. I can't see how liking one particular number system aids you in contributing. MER-C 04:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Who cares what number base "preference" users have? Isn't helpful at all. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on this one. Of all the topics raised, this is most specifically relevant to WP editing. DGG 04:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How? --Haemo 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. See my comment on "Wikipedians who support HD DVD" --Haemo 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Using iTunes, or the store, is very general and cannot help people work together. --Haemo 00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Using iTunes, or the store, is very general and cannot help people work together. --Haemo 00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned in the discussion nominee. E&M ^(talk) 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no collaborative merit. Also, only one user. --Haemo 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All Support/Oppose categories should be deleted. If people want to collaborate, they can create "interested in" categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Smoking is very general. Not smoking is even more general. Not doing something is definitely not a reason to collaborate -- and smoking is not something people will collaborate around anyways. --Haemo 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not" category that I have been trying to get deleted for months. Does not help to categorize people by what they do not do. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Smoking is very general. Smoking is not something people will collaborate around anyways. --Haemo 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom—arf! 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Being left-handed, although uncommon, is not that rare. Also, it offers no way for people who share this attribute to work together -- contrary to popular opinion, lefties are not actually different from the rest of us in any meaningful way. --Haemo 03:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All people are either left or right handed, no need to ever go looking for left handed people in this category. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep left-handed people have to face challenges in this world where 90% of the population is right-handed and just about all implements are made for right-handed people. There is a potential for collaboration at least on items made for left-handed people.--Ramdrake 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a lefty, but it's not something to which I am particularly predisposed to collaborate, and I'd bet that I'm not alone on this. It's sort of like having green eyes; it's unusual, but not something that needs a category of its own. Horologium t-c 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a category by itself cannot serve a collaborative purpose, then how can any? Utilitarianism is a huge position in ethics and the pages in Category:Utilitarianism need serious attention from people knowledgeable in it. –Pomte 03:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Labeling oneself as a utilitarian by slapping a userbox on a user page does not make one an expert in the subject area. People who are not utilitarians may still be experts, and people who label themselves as such may edit in completely different areas, despite a philosophical leaning in one direction. Dmcdevit·t 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dmcdevit. Horologium t-c 01:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Using a popular software program does not make anyone more likely to work on it in an encyclopedic fashion. --Haemo 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of people can use Google Earth, but this categories implies nothing about using it to contribute encyclopedic content. The existence of similar categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on media preference, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Liking something does not imply an increased ability to edit articles related to the topic or even necessarily an increased desire to do so. The existence of similar categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. So what? No liking something does not induce anyone to working on articles together in any constructive way. --Haemo 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this category have disappeared with all of the other "Wikipedians by Religion" cats? It was a subcat and was included in the deletion discussion. Horologium t-c 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. I am in this category -- however, I can't even begin to think of how this would help me work with another editor, let alone be inclined to do so. --Haemo 03:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A lot of people have irregular sleep schedules and knowing your sleeping habits dosen't really help out Wikipedia. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 03:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above—arf! 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is certainly relevant to working--it is important to know who is likely to be around at odd hours. There might be possibly even more useful ways of doing it (e.g. WPedians who are likely to be available between 07:00 and 09:00 UTC) people have even mentioning their time zone as a factor in RfAs, and it has not been challenged there--this is particularly relevant for admins. DGG 19:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Haemo, and Hdt83. Horologium t-c 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Way, way too broad to be of any use for collaboration. --Haemo 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too vague a category to aid in collaboration. Seems to be there for people who are unwilling to specifically identify themselves in one of the other child cats of Wikipedians by mental condition—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being farsighted does not equal special knowledge of the condition, or a desire to collaborate on the one or two articles that might relate to the condition. Horologium t-c 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Believing in Santa will not help anyone, ever, write an encyclopedia article ever, and certainly will not help them work together on one. --Haemo 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete possible - Utterly rediculous this category has survived so long. By no means useful in any way. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at LONG LAST.--WaltCip 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'm quite sure Santa doesn't qualify as either a religious or a political figure, so WP:NOT#SOAP doesn't apply here.--Ramdrake 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Way too broad to be of any collaborative merit - lots of different faiths, and non-faiths believe in one. That doesn't mean they'll work together on an article about it. --Haemo 03:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't want a "who believe in" category for every topic. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted by Black Falcon. MER-C 12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians as apparently narrowly focused -- only a few members. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Either works for me. If pressed, I'd lean towards Merge. Horologium t-c 02:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted by Black Falcon. MER-C 12:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians as apparently narrowly focused -- only a few members. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. I'm fine with either. If pressed, I'd lean towards Merge. Horologium t-c 02:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this is for wikipedians who support the car-free movement the creator should have named the category to represent that. This could be speedied as recreation of Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Any collaborative merit this could have is minimal, and subsumed by other, more functional, templates and categories. The Myspace factor of this is over the top. --Haemo 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category has no collaborative purpose. Wikipedia is not and is not suited to be an help website. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative merit. Lots of people have alcohol problems, and that doesn't make them likely to work together on articles. --Haemo 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see what use users would have going through this category looking for users. VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete'. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly the ultimate WP:NOT#SOCIALNET category. There is no collaborative possbilities here, other than (possibly) the AOL Instant Messenger article. Not encyclopedic in any way, shape or form. Horologium t-c 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. Millions of users do this. Too broad to ever aid in collaboration. --Haemo 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No collaborative merit whatsoever—arf! 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. No redeeming value. MER-C 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category has no collaborative merit. The ability to drive a car is irrelevant to the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about cars. Category for professionals – mechanics, automotive engineers, stunt drivers – might be useful, but this generic category is not. In addition, the ability to operate a vehicle is a sufficiently broad property that I don't expect it to have any meaningful connection with a desire to edit articles about cars. This nomination also includes:

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. Virtually everyone has this skill -- it will not help anyone work together. --Haemo 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant or particularly unusual.--T. Anthony 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not facilitate collaboration. Riana (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was that this is a duplicate nomination. I'll renominate it so that it gets a proper hearing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Punk Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who listen to punk

Nominator's rationale: The two categories are essentially redundant. However, whereas a weak argument for collaborative potential could be made for the second, the title of the first implies a social networking purpose that goes against current policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Punk Wikipedians is proposed for deletion above. I don't think listening to punk music is necessarily the same as being "punk" anyway, is it? Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group of seven interrelated categories, all of which are tied to User:The Thadman/Userbox/PolCompass. There are six political categories and one that relates specifically to the Political Compass test. Political categories were supposed to be nuked, but these were missed. The final category doesn't facilitate collaboration.

Category:Economic Neutral Wikipedians
Category:Economic Left Wikipedians
Category:Economic Right Wikipedians
Category:Social Authoritarian Wikipedians
Category:Social Libertarian Wikipedians
Category:Social Neutral Wikipedians
Category:Political Compass Wikipedians

(Note that I have this userbox on my page, and will be affected by the category deletion as well. That's fine with me; I am happy with the userbox alone.) Horologium t-c 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, as nom. Horologium t-c 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These are identical to the previously deleted WP:UCFD#Category:WSPQ Wikipedians ones below, I must have missed it. It is not necessary to find someone of your own, or any other, political persuasion to foster collaboration, and the net result of these categories is to group users according to point of view, or, at best, to provide for social networking between likeminded users. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Dmcdevit. The userbox adequately serves the purpose of self-identification. The categories are unneeded and unproductive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actually ideologies could help; this is just a grab back of factoids. Cannot aid in collaboration. --Haemo 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone uses userboxes or even accepts them. Also it gives some sense of the political makeup of the place without being as problematic or partisan as the older political categories.--T. Anthony 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-These categories were created expressly for the userbox. I doubt that even one person on Wikipedia without the userbox is in any of these categories. Horologium t-c 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user category used by only one user. Since the concept of height does not exist in an electronic world, it is not relevant to acrophobes' ability or inability to contribute to the encyclopedia. It also serves no collaborative purpose, not in small part due to its broadness. A lot of people have a fear of heights, but there is no reason to assume that they have an inherent propensity or improved ability to edit articles related to acrophobia, except perhaps by recounting their personal experiences (which is not encyclopedic).

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there is no reason to assume any specific person in this category has "an inherent propensity or improved ability to edit articles related to acrophobia", it is reasonable to assume that some of them do (the same assumption, it seems to me, is fair for any category - no certainties, just possibilities). However, I would not oppose deletion on the basis of a population of less than four users, with no prejudice to recreate if there are more users identifying with this category.--Ramdrake 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it has one user, the creator, with very few edits and only pop culture-related ones. Even if people with a fear of heights were potentially more knowledgeable (which I doubt; it is a common affliction that most people have never even seen the doctor for. I'm no more knowledgeable about bruises or allergies), then whether they have it or not is irrelevant: they should be expressing that expertise, so we don't have to wonder. If the category leaves us wondering, then it isn't serving the supposed purpose of indicating depth of knowledge. Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might argue that any category with only one member is a problem, whether for articles or users. With that in mind, this should probably be merged or deleted. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is either pointless or divisive. Interpreted simply as a harmless expression of one's lack of desire to be a sysop, the category is unnecessary as it is possible to express that position through the userbox. I can understand the existence of a category for administrator hopefuls seeking advice or nominations, but why would anyone look through a category of people who don't want to be admins? The userbox may be a quick way of preempting nomination offers, but the category itself has no value. The category can also be interpreted as a divisive statement against the role of admins and/or against administrators themselves.

I think the former (innocent but useless) is the more likely of the two, especially since most (if not all) editors in the category were placed there automatically by a template. However, in either case, I think the category ought to be deleted.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Another "not" category. A pox on all UBX creators who add categories to every creation. Horologium t-c 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly can't see any specific encyclopedia-building insight particular to this user cat. Makes a nice userbox, though; just not a proper usercat. :)--Ramdrake 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "not" categories are very rarely collaborative. This is not one of the rare exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Very little (if any) redeeming value. The statement on the top of my talk page would do just fine. MER-C 09:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, has a specific purpose, and certainly isn't simply a "not" category. It exists so that others don't waste their time planning to nominate the people in this category. Since there are some users who go around habitually attempting to find good potential candidates, this category is a helpful way for those who don't wish to be asked about adminship to avoid it, and save the would-be nominators trouble as well. (I suppose they could do this even without the category, but do you really want them breaking 3RR repeatedly just so that people won't nominate them?) As for the argument that the userbox works just as well, some people don't like userboxes. As such, the category is serving a purpose beyond that of the userbox, is helpful to collaboration on RfA by providing an opt-out list for nominations, and deleting it would have no benefit. --tjstrf talk 09:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I also think that persons who do not want to become administrator may indicate so on their user page. No one is going to nominate anyone without at least reading the user page. --Bhadani (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is useful to know who does not want to become an administrator. However, people can write this on their userpage. The purpose of categories is to seek out people in a group - There will be no purpose to ever go looking through this category. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For convenience as it'd presumably be quicker than searching random user pages for this information.--T. Anthony 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would you be looking for people who don't wish to become administrators? The reason this would be useful is if you wanted to nominate someone, but then saw they did not want to be an admin-Info you can get by looking on their userpage, we don't need a category. Having a category would imply there would be some value to specifically seeking out those who do not wish to become admins, and I can't think of what that value would be. VegaDark (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 246 user pages (and subpages) that transclude the userbox. There are 272 user pages (and subpages) in the category. Some may be substituted, but I'm not going to check because it's a waste of time. We know there exist people who prefer categories to userboxes, so it's definitely possible.. If you want to delete this category, please identify and alert all users who are using this category as the only means of informing others that they do not wish to be nominated. –Pomte 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a language school. The desire to learn more languages is commendable, but it does not aid encyclopedic collaboration in any way. It does not imply any knowledge of any non-English languages nor does it specify an interest in any particular language. Furthermore, the category is basically redundant to existing low-level (i.e., level 0 or 1) Babel categories.

The subcategories were recently considered for deletion (but not the parent category) and the discussion ended with a decision to "merge" (see here). However, I think the main category itself is unnecessary.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I voted in prior round. It's fine for a userbox, but it's a "not" category, and therefore useless for collaboration. Horologium t-c 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we're not a language school, and not knowing something cannot help build an encyclopedia. --Haemo 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete category and child categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Parent category was discussed at WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians who visit countries with a decision of delete. The child categories were not nominated, although 2 comments did advocate their deletion as well (no objection was noted), and as a result the parent cat was emptied, but not deleted. After discussion with the closing admin, I've agreed to nominate the children here for clarity. Suggest that the children be deleted now, which should also allow the parent cat to be eliminated completely. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The categories included in this nomination are:

Category:Wikipedians who visit countries

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to France

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to Greece

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to Italy

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to the UK

Delete perforce, if the parent cat has already been through UCFD and the verdict was delete (unanimous, to boot), this nomination should probably even be speedied. into deletion--Ramdrake 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. If the parent isn't worthy, then the subcats cannot be worthy either. Horologium t-c 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Visiting another country does not suddenly endow people with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content to such articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all visiting a country will not help you work with others on articles. --Haemo 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all. Per nom and don't have encyclopedic contribuition. E&M ^(talk) 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could be useful for getting images of locations as a visitor would presumably be more likely to photograph things than a native would. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that purpose is served by a general "Wikipedians who visit countries" (which countries?) category or "have travelled to" (past tense) subcategories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — an abuse of the category system. --Cyde Weys 08:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Such Wikipedians can offer specific insight on some handicap-related articles. Alternately, could be merged to some supercategory like "Handicapped Wikipedians".--Ramdrake 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Ramdrake. Mike R 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. What specific insights? Any insights unsupported by a source are, by definition, original research. There is no little encyclopedic collaborative merit to this category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Insights as to proper wording on subjects dealing with people with disabilities, to give but one example. In any text, how you say it is as important as what you say. Also, these people are likely to be more familiar with some research items with regards to disabilities and readaptation - not a certainty, just a likelihood, but in my mind clearly enough to refute the affirmation that there can be no encyclopedic collaborative merit to this category. Clearly, there is probable reason to believe it can serve some encyclopaedic purpose.--Ramdrake 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm ... although I doubt that there is much collaborative merit to the category, your argument is convincing enough for me to replace "no" with "too little" and change my "delete" recommendation to "weak delete". To be honest, I don't think anyone would approach another user to say "I see you've noted that you're handicapped; would you like to help with this handicap-related article?" Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it as a likely occurrence. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I can see that a non-handicapped person would probably have great misgivings about doing this; a handicapped person might actually find this category useful for that purpose. As I am on the concerned side of this particular category, it didn't occur to me that a non-handicapped person would hesitate using this category.--Ramdrake 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be specific I don't see myself as in a wheelchair, but I do use one. (At home I crawl, scoot, or roll, but that is usually too slow to go long distance.) There are certain brands of electric wheelchair that I'd have studies or information packets on, but that the average person may not. I'm not sure an article on the Turbo or Per-Mobil is desired, but if it were I might have more information at my place than most people would.--T. Anthony 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on articles relating to these devices, but maybe a more broad category, such as "Wikipedians who use Creative MP3 players", would be more useful. Mike R 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too specific. A broader category is still not an appropriate category, as there is little collaborative potential for the cat. Even a merge with iPod users, portable CD player users, and portable cassette player users to "Wikipedians who use portable music devices" will not create a useful category. Horologium t-c 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Horologium. I use a wide variety of electronic devices, but that doesn't mean I know anything about them beyond how to use them. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I certainly do not know about any sources relating to them. I think this category would not be too different from Category:Wikipedians who use toasters. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too specific. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If this category has no collaborative purpose what about Category:Wikipedians who use iPods? It has the same relevant information, so it should be deleted too? By the way, the category points to an userbox, that automatically adds everyone who uses it to the category. E&M^(talk) 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The userbox can be edited so that it no longer automatically categorises users. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be useful in finding other editors to collaborate on topics related to this device. Mike R 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I use both a Treo and an iPod, but both facts are unencyclopedic and do nothing to further the project. Other editors with these interests could still be located by forming WikiProjects and by looking at whatlinkshere on the userbox transclusions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per After Midnight. A lot of people use a lot of electronic devices ... that doesn't mean they can or have an interest in writing about them. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the category includes just one user. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rationale given in above nomination. Horologium t-c 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences. MER-C 03:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. I do too - that doesn't mean I'm going to boo with other users who do. --Haemo 08:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may possibly be useful, and causes no harm. Loom91 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether it does no harm, the argument is that it does not foster collaboration. We delete "harmless" pages that are simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using something does not automatically imply an interest in it or an ability to write on it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ĎĚĽĚŤĚ - no redeeming encyclopedic value. You use Unicode every time you run a Java applet or application anyway, so it's overly broad. MER-C 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Using a wireless connection is very general, and does not make anyone inclined to work with another user who does so. --Haemo 08:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Haemo. Mike R 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Haemo. Horologium t-c 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments for wireless category above. Mike R 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too general to be useful. Also, editors who use a given technology are not automatically endowed with the ability or desire to edit articles about that technology. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Using a PDA does not make anyone more inclined to write about them in an encyclopedic manner. --Haemo 08:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments on "Wikipedians who use" categories. In general, use of a device does not automatically give the ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about that device. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rationale given in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians who use Zen Nanos or MuVo N200s. Horologium t-c 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does the existence of those other (potentially equally inappropriate) categories validate the existence of this one? Perhaps some of the others are worthy of deletion as well. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on topics related to this artist. Mike R 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Category:WikiProject Pete Rock participants is useful for that purpose. This is useful for finding Wikipedians who listen to him regardless of knowledge or propensity for contributions to related articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per below: WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians who listen to Madonna. MER-C 09:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit and also because the category contains only one user. The existence of other (possibly equally inappropriate) categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other editors to collaborate on Madonna-related topics. Mike R 15:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare Category:WikiProject Queen participants with Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queen. The first one is for collaboration; the second one is for social networking and creating Myspacey home pages. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. The music you listen to has no relevance to Wikipedia and hence this category has no redeeming value. MER-C 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit and also because the category contains only one user. The existence of other (possibly equally inappropriate) categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Liking something is rarely collaborative -- disliking it is definitely not. --Haemo 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Dislike" categories should go, obviously. Mike R 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not categories are a not. Horologium t-c 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo. This could perhaps be used to collaborate on vandalising the article. Only joking ... please don't get any ideas. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not" category. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The two editors currently in the category, User:Hotspot and User:Lanky are both aware of each other and both are currently active on the Kya: Dark Lineage article. I do not know what role, if any, the category played in their collaboration, but I do think that this fact is relevant to this discussion. Perhaps the "collaborative potential" of the category has already been exhausted; perhaps it served no such purpose in the first place. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- How dare you try to get rid of it, its not a category for an article, its for wikipedias who like kya dark lineage, there are other categories just like this and they aren't in question for deletion!!! it will grow you know, i made this category becuase i love kya dark lineage and i want to know who else plays it! and why does it say myspace in the beginning? i hate myspace i would never go there!-hotspot
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, all categories must somehow contribute to the encyclopedia. MER-C 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- its not fair other games get a category!-hotspot
Organizing users by genre of game may be more useful -- if we keep up one category for every game released, we'll quickly drown in a sea of categories that won't tell us anything more than a quick glance at the article's history page. I would favor deleting this category, on those grounds, but it's far from being the only one. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on game preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my first comment. Any collaborative potential that this category may have had has already been exhausted. Also, the existence of other categories does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was only one page to merge, and already in upper category, so delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into more broad vegetarian category. A vegetarian category would be useful for someone trying to find other editors to collaborate on topics related to vegetarianism, vegetarian cuisine, etc. Mike R 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Haemo. The category contains only one user (the other two pages are the userbox and a WP page) who is already classified in Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians. Thus, a merge is not necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Black Falcon. Would have supported a merge if the larger cat was not all-inclusive. Horologium t-c 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The lack of users (two at the moment) significantly weakens the claim that this category encourages encyclopedic collaboration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on topics related to this band. Mike R 15:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the others, this merely indicates Wikipedians who listen to them regardless of knowledge or propensity for contributions to related articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... would genre categories offer more potential for collaboration? Also, this category in particular appears to be completely empty. If this is the result of foul play, that's bad; if this is natural, then the category should probably be deleted. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the userbox is used by only one Wikipedian. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is used by only one editor, which both "keep" arguments above seem to have overlooked. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of other pages does not validate the existence of this one. Perhaps the other "categories on music preference" are inappropriate as well. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. Drinking alcohol is exceedingly general and will not lead anyone to work together. --Haemo 08:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Haemo. Mike R 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Drinking alcohol does not give the ability to contribute encyclopedic content to articles about alcohol. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take out its mirror image Category:Wikipedian Teetotalers at the same time. We don't need either cat. Horologium t-c 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians who play role-playing games. The last two keep arguments don't address the nomination, and the remainder suggest that the main issue regarding deletion is the narrow scope of the category. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be useful in finding other Wikipedians to collaborate on topics related to these games. Mike R 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are White Wolf games really that specific (or a unique genre) to justify such an argument? I'm not challenging your recommendation, but am genuinely curious. For instance, I would not find this argument convincing if it was Category:Wikipedians who play football or Category:Wikipedians who play cards. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who play role-playing games. Potentially useful category, I think, but too narrow in scope. My opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on music preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you quite sure you're reading the discussions you're participating in? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. So what? --Haemo 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Haemo. Mike R 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "So what?" about sums it up. It's a neat ability to have, but it has no relevance to the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value, especially when one has a screwdriver. MER-C 03:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Per current policy, non-article pages should be targeted toward the organisation or improvement of articles or to the provision of "a foundation for effective collaboration". User categories are appropriate only if they further collaboration; this one does not.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this has no collaborative potential. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — an abuse of the category system. --Cyde Weys 08:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. I can only see one use for this and... uh... yeah. --Haemo 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to stay out of these, but, wow, there's only one user in this category. No reason he needs an entire cat to identify this preference on his userpage. ergot 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are actually 14 people who have the userbox, but 13 of them have the usercat transcluded. Not sure what happened there... I'm not going to !vote on this one, because it ties into some areas where my personal biases are relevant. Horologium t-c 21:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This doesn't help collaboration at all—arf! 01:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No collaborative merit. A hippie without access to sources can contribute less than a non-hippie with access to sources. The identity itself makes no difference. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No linked article, feels very MySpacey. Horologium t-c 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An interesting category and self-identification, but it holds no collaborative potential. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no collaborative value, not linked to an article. Horologium t-c 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit, though I could definitely qualify. --Haemo 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Horologium t-c 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit; having a medical condition does not lead to any sort of expertise on it. --Haemo 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No collaborative merit; also, the category contains only one member. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no collaborative merit—arf! 01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be useful in finding other editors to collaborate on topics related to this game. Mike R 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if collaboration is needed this could be done through a WikiProject. Also, only the category would be removed, not the userbox - so whatlinkshere for the transclusions will still be available. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the point? Less than 160 userpages have the userbox, whereas ~182 unique users are in the category. The userbox is optional. The category is more inclusive and easier to use. –Pomte 09:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that categories aren't used for collaboration, WikiProjects are. Feel free to save a list of the users in the category to your userspace prior to deletion to save for future WikiProject creation. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: while I've closed the below three categories as delete (Protoss, Terran, and Zerh players), I don't feel it would be appropriate to delete this particular category without a wee bit more discussion. As I've involved myself with the discussions below, I'll avoid commenting beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & After Midnight. Pepsidrinka 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned by After Midnight, a WikiProject might be useful here; there was a lot of interest in this game when it first appeared. Horologium t-c 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of categories on game preference, so there's no reason to delete this.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, the pylons to support this many Wikipedians are too expensive. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit at all. It doesn't even make sense. --Haemo 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I will reconsider if anyone proves they belong to this particular species. :)--Ramdrake 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this category is a sub of "Wikipedians who play Starcraft". Still, I see no redeeming value.--Ramdrake 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming value whatsoever, and just plain stupid. MER-C 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too specific for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I'll reconsider if someone manages to prove they don't belong in this category. :)--Ramdrake 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless, all-inclusive category. Horologium t-c 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless. Mike R 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this category is a sub of "Wikipedians who play Starcraft". Still, I see no redeeming value.--Ramdrake 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't a game clan forum. MER-C 04:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too specific for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was kekekekekekekekekekeke (also, delete). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't help collaboration at all, and feels a little myspacey—arf! 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this category is a sub of "Wikipedians who play Starcraft". Still, I see no redeeming value.--Ramdrake 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming value whatsoever, and just plain stupid. MER-C 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too specific for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. I'll bet insomnia is another user category --Haemo 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge/move to something to the effect of "Wikipedians with sleep disorders" or some such, to at least lump these together (which seems to magnify any collaborate merit they might have). Not having found similar categories while I was searching, though, we could also arguably delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus or keep depending on how you call it -- either defaults to keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - does not appear to have collaborative merit, but change my mind! --Haemo 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This one, unlike most of the others, actually has some potential for collaboration. In fact, the article to which it is linked is currently tagged as being America-centric. Someone interested in improving that article could look for someone elsewhere (Germany, Belgium and Australia pop into my head immediately) and see if they are willing to work on expanding the article. Horologium t-c 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really don't understand why editors insist on wasting their time trying to delete userboxes when there is so much constructive work to be done in the encyclopedia. This catagory obviously has significant potential to aid in collaborations. Loom91 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious collaborative purpose. Mike R 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Horologium. To me, this seems to be more of a "by profession" category. I don't see "obvious" or "significant" potential to aid collaboration, but I think a case could be made. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could be useful to know when a Wikipedian is dyslexic. Mike R 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it could be useful, but how could it be useful to an encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete. ~~I agree that it could be useful to know when an editor is dyslexic, but~~ that purpose is filled by the userbox. I'm having a hard time thinking of a use for the category itself. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while the userbox would also be useful, I would point out some people seem allergic to them out of principle. Having an alternate way of tagging those who want to tag themselves in this way would make sense.--Ramdrake 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of what benefit to the project is tagging oneself as dyslexic? Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently without collaborative merit; in response to Ramdrake's concern over users uncomfortable with userboxes, that's accomplished easily enough by writing "by the way, I'm dyslexic" on one's userpage, no? We don't really need categories for everything, and as much as I can sympathize, this really strikes me as social networking, personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot think of any way in which finding dyslexic users could be useful to writing any article. Being dyslexic does not imply a connection with being knowledgable about dyslexia. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit; I'm not sure how this could be used for anything. --Haemo 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no way you can get a group of nominalists to agree on anything other than the name. (grin) Horologium t-c 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category itself has little or no collaborative merit. Any potential for collaboration is already realised through WikiProject Military history. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit; liking something does not make one likely to contribute to it. --Haemo 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal. I am, of course, assuming that people affiliating "with the culture of heavy metal music" listen to heavy metal. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Black Falcon. Unless we're uncomfortable recategorizing people without giving them notice, in which case delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would be unhelpful. Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal is jut as useless, an should be deleted too. These are users who listen to heavy metal, not users who have declared an interest in collaborating on those articles. Category:WikiProject Metal members already exists. Dmcdevit·t 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Black Falcon. Dmcdevit - I disagree with you, at least one of these categories could be of assistance to the WikiProject. Just because I listen doesn't mean I want to join a wikiproject, but expressing an interest through a category shows I wouldn't mind being asked an opinion. Ga rr ie 07:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dmcdevit is absolutely correct in the lack of collaborative purpose for this category. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given that the article Omnitheism was deleted at a recent AfD discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no article=no category. Horologium t-c 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per current policy, all non-article pages should be targeted toward the organisation or improvement of articles or to the provision of "a foundation for effective collaboration". Pages in userspace are (rightly) given significant leeway on this matter, but these pages are in the category namespace. These categories are so broad as to render them useless for the purpose of furthering collaboration. There is no subject that single people can inherently contribute about that married people can't, and vice versa.

Both articles were nominated for deletion in June 2006; the nominations were closed as "no consensus": see here and here.

Note: Most of the users in these categories are there because they use one of at least six userboxes. The userboxes are NOT the subject of this deletion nomination.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until someone can show me an article or two on which single people would have a better insight than non-single people (whatever their status maybe).--Ramdrake 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Ramdrake. Horologium t-c 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. MER-C 03:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, but how else will I have an easy list of whom to hit on? Ok, I think I'll manage. delete JoshuaZ 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. A person's weight has little or no relevance to his or her ability to edit, editing interests, or editing strengths. So, this category does not provide "a foundation for effective collaboration" and thus violates the "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site" provision of WP:NOT.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as I can conceive that some people in this category might contribute on articles such as anorexia, amenorrhea, even though that's far from a given.--Ramdrake 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -I'd actually rather not even suggest a possible correlation between 'thin wikipedians' and anorexia. As a side note, 'Wikipedians interested in eating disorders' probably could make a decent category. But I don't see any potential use for this one. Bladestorm 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How thin is thin? It can't be conclusively defined because it's subjective. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tghat doesnt apply here--the users define themselves in. This is not article space.DGG 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot think that "thin" is at all a property which would aid in collaboration. --Haemo 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete social networking sites are a great place to put how thin you are! --_Hdt83 ^Chat 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one surely doesn't assist collaboration at all...—arf! 01:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value; arbitrary. MER-C 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thin is subjective, among many other reasons to delete this. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with the others. paternalism. DGG 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category does not conceivably facilitate cooperation. I can only see it helping nearsightedness, but even that's suspect (just because I wear glasses doesn't mean I can contribute effectively to the article).

Delete as nom. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 21.06.07 2139 (UTC)

Keep thanks, a new category for my page! It'll help me bond with other myopics! -N 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category provides no potential for encyclopedic collaboration and is thus in violation of current policy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral although I'm sure people would be quick to call me near-sighted if I voted this way or that. (Sorry, just had to!).--Ramdrake 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 00:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — an abuse of the category system. --Cyde Weys 08:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It is conceivable that some of the more extreme people in this category could be helpful for making variations of Wikipedia that are easier for people with vision problems to use. JoshuaZ 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite far-fetched. In fact, I don't know what you have in mind. I am short-sighted; that means I have to take my glasses off to see the computer. I don't think there is much that a website can do for vision problems that glasses can't. Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no potential for collaboration. Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:User Shona into Category:User sn per category conventions. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:User sn, convention of Category:Wikipedians by language, see List of ISO 639-1 codes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. Non-ISO cats should be merged or deleted whenever possible. Horologium t-c 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:User Ndebele into Category:User nd per category conventions. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:User nd, convention of Category:Wikipedians by language, see List of ISO 639-1 codes -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. Non-ISO categories should be merged or deleted whenever possible. Horologium t-c 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Bad idea. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This has been created and killed several times now. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_11 --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above DRV log—arf! 00:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gasp, Amarkov is the same age as I am? bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Bad idea. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born in 1991[edit]

Delete, This has been created and killed several times now. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer Delete, but if necessary, merge to Category:Wikipedians in their teens. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this category does not serve to develop WP in any way—arf! 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - per author, below. - jc37 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socks of Icewedge - Presumably an eponymous, vanity category. - jc37 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confused speedy delete - I am in a bit of a fuddle here. It is true I placed "[[Category:Socks of Icewedge]]" on the pages of all accounts I have ever created in an attempt to show their non abuse nature but it was not me that created the actual category it was the nominator [1]. I see two possible courses of action he could have taken instead: 1. Leave it be, having a link to a page does not make it exist, or 2. he could have removed the category links since he seems to find them offending. Regardless delete it I do not want it. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 04:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to your confusion on your talk page. - jc37 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dadaist Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Empty cat created from rename after another CFD on 2 September 2006. See above. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Empty.No opinion on this one.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For maintenance purposes, the userboxes found are ((User dada)) and ((User:Lewiscode/Userboxes/User Dada-1)) with 2 transclusions total. The category is empty because it was removed from the userbox and the userboxes are not transcluded apart from their creators because they did not make it known. –Pomte 12:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and end the madness. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 81 articles in Category:Dada for potential collaboration, and since they are mostly people articles, it's important that we have at least some sort of maintenance on them. I don't think the movement is so controversial nowadays that it will create conflict with other types of Wikipedians. –Pomte 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't that what we have WikiProjects for? That would seem to me to be a better way to organize users to maintain these articles. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when you start a WikiProject, how are you going to find people to invite? Going through talk pages and histories for non-trivial edits is tedious, and complements this method. What's the point of user categories anyway? –Pomte 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — an abuse of the category system. --Cyde Weys 08:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this category a nuisance on the eyes? –Pomte 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pomte. Mike R 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create a WikiProject, and tag all the related articles. People who are interested will join the WikiProject; people who are not will skip it. You'll get a truer gauge of how many people are ACTUALLY interested, and how many just added yet another userbox to their page. Horologium t-c 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (already deleted). VegaDark (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Unpopulated category,~~ no article link. Horologium t-c 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and end the madness. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Wikipedians with a transformation fetish, Category:Kinky Wikipedians, and all other such categories to Category:Wikipedians with sexual fetishism. Consider the ((underconstruction)) history of List of fetishes, which needed contributors interested enough in the subject to research on it. This is a first step in collaboration before the establishment of a WikiProject or task force. A parallel is Category:LGBT Wikipedians and the strongly populated WikiProject LGBT studies.–Pomte 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as well as Category:Wikipedians with a transformation fetish and Category:Kinky Wikipedians. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale? –Pomte 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't mind a less specific category for Wikipedians interested sexual fetishism topics in the future though. VegaDark (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future? Why not now, when they're already grouped? How are you going to find them back to invite them to the new category? –Pomte 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they will see the category is redlinked, look at the UCFD, and create the new category if they feel strongly enough about it. VegaDark (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted. MER-C 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BBW Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unpopulated category. See above. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and end the madness. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted and let it stay that way. Being a BBW is neither here nor there. YechielMan 08:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Unlike the majority of the categories that were speedied and restored, this one was originally empty, and as such was a valid speedy and should have never even been brought back here. On the other hand, bringing this here will establish precedent to speedy it if ever recreated. VegaDark (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category does not provide a foundation for constructive collaboration and thus violates the "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site" provision of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The only basis for collaboration that it provides is the playing of practical jokes, which hardly serves an encyclopedic end. In short, the user category presents no benefits and may instead be harmful. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little or no collaborative potential. Horologium t-c 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I would argue against the thought that it doesn't provide a foundation for constructive collaboration, but it may be harmful. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any collaborative merit here. --Haemo 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this clearly doesn't serve to further the development of WP—arf! 08:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and end the madness. I can't even be bothered to make a joke here. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Jokes are okay to a certain degree but having a category entirely dedicated to joking dosen't really help out the encyclopedia. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration. Was originally intended for those that have the idiotic fake "You have new messages" bar, but luckily those have been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. MER-C 03:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete (a) no encyclopedic purpose; (b) violation of WP:NOT. For collaboration., users can categorize themselves as "Wikipedians interested in XXXX". Note that many other similar categories have been recently deleted on this basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination includes Category:Wikipedians by religion and its approximately 150 subcategories.

Wikipedia is not MySpace. Any page that is not an article should either further the organisation or improvement of articles or "provide a foundation for effective collaboration". In short, all pages should be targeted toward the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Any page that is not may be deleted. Of course, the criteria above are and should be interpreted rather loosely as Wikipedia's editors are volunteers and not employees.

Many user categories meet the criteria outlined above. For instance, Category:Wikipedians by access to sources and references and Category:Wikipedians by language aid article improvement via sourcing and translation, respectively. Category:Wikipedians by religion and its approximately 150 subcategories do not. The categories group users by religion, often because a user added one or another userbox to their userpage. However, grouping users by religious identification does not in any way aid article improvement, since identifying with a religious philosophy does not necessarily mean that one has an interest in it. Users can express their religious views via a userbox without having to be classified into a category.

To empty the categories, one would need to:

Edit all religion userboxes so that they no longer categorise pages on which they are transcluded, and
Edit any userpages that were categorised manually (i.e., not by a userbox) and remove the categorisation (either manually or by a bot) to discourage recreation of the categories.

Please note that I am not advocating the deletion of religion userboxes (per my point about volunteers versus employees). Removing a userbox from someone's userpage is quite invasive and may irritate a lot of people; removing their userpage from a category is a minor edit that may even go unnoticed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously these stupid things should go. They have no encyclopedic purpose and their only uses are to abuse Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from userboxes-People who do manually add the category are doing it for a reason. Lumping that together with accidentally categorization is inappropriate. And tony, please try to AGF. Making such (clearly unprovable) accusations is absolutely unacceptable Bladestorm 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By AGF I assume you mean "assume good faith", and the following response is written upon that presumption:
I hold that the only use for these categories is to abuse Wikipedia, and yes I can substantiate that they have been used for the purpose. This isn't to say that those who put them into their user pages intend them to be abused, but that is their only possible use. If you're of a particular religious persuasion, and you think it's in any way relevant to your editing of Wikipedia, you should of course write that fact into your user page. You don't need a category for that. A category is required, however to make abusing Wikipedia easy. This is why we must delete them. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, you've made an allegation here and I challenge you to support it. First, how does putting oneself in this category cause anything to be abused--what exact abuse do you have in mind? Second, you claim it has occurred. Prove it. DGG 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I meant 'assume good faith'. (I don't know why I keep using acronyms. I bloody hate it when other people do it) But it's absurd to say that abuse is the only possible use. What's more, it's an accusation against everyone who lists themselves by religion (incidentally, I am not listed. So this isn't just me taking it personally). But there are countless reasons that it could be useful. The first one that comes to me off the top of my head is the 'Kosher foods' article. The article mentions that hares are not kosher. This is true. However, it's outright wrong in that it states that hares chew their cud, but don't have cloven hooves. Now, that is the supplied reason in leviticus. However, it isn't true. Hares don't chew their cud. So, what do you do? Obviously they still aren't kosher. Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to just start editing the article to start criticizing leviticus. Some sort of rewording needs to be worked out that retains the fact that hares aren't kosher, but that doesn't make it look like Wikipedia is asserting that hares chew their cud. There are a couple possible ways to do it, but I'd rather let someone a bit closer to the subject choose the most sensitive alternative. Is this necessary? Of course not. But it seems more cooperative. That means having an article that neither supports a religious view, nor mocks it. As it stands, there's at least one editor involved in the conversation that's either jewish or interested in jewish topics (I don't know which; nor does it matter to me), so there isn't a problem. However, if that weren't the case, then being able to find a jewish editor could actually be a very valuable resource. Even if you disagree, you would surely have to concede that it wouldn't be abuse. Bladestorm 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I tend to agree with this. Just because someone belongs to x religion, it does not mean they are more likely to collaborate on articles relating to that religion. Such people can create or join existing "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories if that is the case. User categories are used to seek out others in the category, and I don't see what encyclopedic use there would be to seek out users in these categories that "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories wouldn't accomplish better. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Wikipedia is, in reality, attempting to create a collaborative encyclopedia by "mail". The fact that the users are required to reach a consensus without seeing or talking to another person is inherently difficult. Any information which an editor wishes to impart about him/herself in order to enhance dialogue should be actively encouraged. It is human nature to build upon a dialogue from common reference points. Any information that might speed this process is beneficial to wikipedia as a whole. Prester John 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your comment that any information an editor wishes to impart is beneficial; I disagree, however, that the category is necessary to do that. The userbox or a note on his or her user page is necessary; those will remain unaffected. --Iamunknown 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that's a valid POV, if it's your opinion, that argument applies to all Wikipedian categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it does not. I think that some information is indeed beneficial to categorize: access to sources, language skills, programming skills; information that can improve Wikipedia is then easily accesible ... but religious affiliation is not one such piece of information. --Iamunknown 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then, please explain to me why/how categorizing by language is a valid category for encyclopedia-building while grouping by religion can't be. I honestly don't understand; from where I sit, it sounds like a personal POV.--Ramdrake 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The ability to speak a language implies knowledge of that language. This knowledge can be put to use to translate articles and/or sources. Identification with a religion does not carry with it a similar usable knowledge of that religion, at least to the degree that one could contribute constructively to an encyclopedia (i.e., no original research). Knowledge of a language implies knowledge of a tool. Identification with a religion, as with most other types of personal identification, does not imply any sort of improved ability to edit a particular class of articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the knowledge involved in the ability to speak a language is entirely subconscious in the case of one's native language and usually imperfect in the case of a language learned later in life. As such, someone who identifies himself as a speaker of a certain language cannot be assumed to be able to access that knowledge in such a way that contributes to the encyclopedia. The language categories are actually just as useless to the encyclopedia project as the religion and political-persuasion categories are, but as the deletion discussion above (and its DRV) shows, I seem to be the only person who realizes that. The language categories are so popular that people have convinced themselves that they are useful as well. —Angr 07:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        You misunderstand. The ability to speak a given language does not necessarily enable you to usefully contribute to articles about this language. It is, however, a prerequisite for writing articles in that language, and for accessing sources in that language. You may not be aware of it, but Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project.--Stephan Schulz 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since none of the subcats are tagged, they won't be deleted as a result of this discussion. Part of why we tag pages is so that editors who may be interested in a discussion are notified of that discussion. I, or any other admin, I am sure, would be happy to relist this discussion, if someone would like to tag all the sub-cats for a group nom. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go ahead and start tagging the pages and will relist the discussion when I finish. Since there is an agreement on this page that admins "may close discussions to which they have contributed", I'll also volunteer myself to work on emptying the categories and subsequently deleting them (assuming, of course, the discussion ends with a consensus to delete). I do have one question though: When listing categories in the "Empty and delete" section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User, should one list each subcategory individually or only list the parent category? I believe it's the former, but I want to make sure. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)ex[reply]
Strong Keep The reasoning here is extremely similar to that for Category:Wikipedians by language. While sorting oneself in a given category does not mean one is interested in collaborating to articles about the specific faith the category represents, it is indicative that one may be interested or at least knowledgeable in that particular denomination. User categories are those that may help build an encyclopedia; no guarantees of interest should be required or given (these people are volunteers, not employees one can assign). If we are to apply this logic evenly, ALL categories save Wikipedians' interested in X should then be deleted. Anything short of it would be unfair to some categories of users.--Ramdrake 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you've stated could also be true of professional categories and the like. However, being a member of a religion does not mean one is able to contribute encyclopedic information about it. Please keep in mind that first-hand knowledge (i.e., original research) does not constitute a valid source for contributions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being a member of a religion means that one may be able to contribute encyclopedic knowledge, it's not a guarantee, but then the same goes for professional categories: being a member of one doesn't mean one is able to contribute encyclopedically; it merely means one might be able to.--Ramdrake 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Encyclopedic knowledge is that which is sourced by secondary sources. Being a member of a religion does not imply any sort of knowledge about such sources (being a religious leader, on the other hand, does). On the other hand, someone who is a biologist has likely studied about biology and is likely aware of and/or has access to sources on the subject. In any case, the validity of professional categories (which can be disputed) does not directly affect the validity of religous categories. Also, professional categories do not have nearly as much capacity to be divisive as religious categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Relisted per jc37's comments above. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they're all perfectly valid. A religion category is no less important that one on sexuality or political involvement. There's no need to get rid of them. GreenJoe 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The political categories were nuked earlier this month, and if you scroll down the page you will see a CfD on gender (not quite the same as sexuality, but similar in terms of conception and scope.) Horologium t-c 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GreenJoe, I agree that they are not less important than ones on sex and politics, but the question is: what is the purpose of having them? Users can express their religious and political views via userboxes without being placed in any category. The categories do nothing to advance the interests of the project. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GreenJoe. -- P.B. Pilhet 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I will ask you the same thing I asked GreenJoe: what purpose do the categories serve? Users can express their religious views without being lumped into one of circa 150 divisive categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that I already gave the answer to that one: it is useful as it indicates one may be able to contribute encyclopedically about a particular faith (no guarantees are given, any more than separating people by language or professional occupation). And I don't see how these categories are any more divisive than those about language; they are part and parcel of one's identity, that's all; the vast majority of the world has passed the age of religion wars. Can we discuss these arguments?--Ramdrake 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've responded to the first part of your comment above (in two separate posts), so I will only address the last part here. Religion is far more divisive than language. A person can speak multiple languages, but can have only one religious affiliation. Also, linguistic differences are not nearly as charged as religious differences, since the latter touches on moral issues and issues of faith. The vast majority of the world is not immune from religious conflict and tension. One need only think of current or recent violence and tension in places like India (Hindu-Muslim), Indonesia (Christian-Muslim), Iraq (Shia-Sunni), Lebanon (Christian-Muslim), Nigeria (Christian-Muslim), Northern Ireland (Catholic Protestant), Sri Lanka (Buddhist-Hindu), and so on, to see that religion is still a salient dimension of division and conflict. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell with it. I'd say keep; facilitates collaboration; makes no advocation of view but someone would invariably say 'well show me; you haven't been doing much with it'. So fuck it. While we're at it, why don't we delete every other user category and replace them with WikiProjects? Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 16.06.07 2316 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand the hostility in your comment? Have I nominated every other user category for deletion? No. Do I intend to? Certainly not! In fact, I've stated above that there are plenty of user categories that are definitely (Wikipedians by access to sources, by interest, by Wikiproject, by technical knowledge, by language, by profession) or most probably (by location, by education, by condition) useful. I have nominated this category for deletion because I think it is (a) useless and (b) divisive. It seems you disagree. I have laid out my arguments so perhaps you would do the same? How does it facilitate collaboration? How does it not advocate a particular (and potentially divisive) view? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm hostile because the discussions that I've witnessed invariably devolve into the same stuff, and to be honest, I expected no less here. That last half-question was, in fact, my current opinion on user categories: I want them gone, if only so we don't have to deal with this any longer; I won't defend this category, although I might have earlier. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 18.06.07 2214 (UTC)
Delete for consistency and fairness. Andries 23:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if users wish to self-identify, let them. If they fight over religion, block for disruption. Since very few of these fights have ever erupted, it strains credibility we'd have to pre-empt them. -N 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Users can self-identify through various userboxes, which are not included in this deletion nomination. In fact, if anyone was to nominate them for deletion, I would oppose the nomination. The categories, however, serve no useful purpose and thus should not be retained per WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. Also, the issue is not that the categories may create "fights", but that they harm collaboration by separating Wikipedians into separate factions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is helpful to know an editor's background when you are trying to edit religious articles together. It goes to developing NPOV articles. (unless someone thinks a person's religion doesn't influence their writing. 8-) )--CTSWyneken 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the userboxes, which are what provide information on an editor's background, are not up for deletion. The userboxes will (and, in my view, should) remain. This nomination covers only the user categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the category designation that allows for quick sourcing of knowledge from users and locating those who may be of use to articles within a specific sect. It is this association with their religious articles that will ultimately lead to better, more thorough articles for the information of all. Skabat169 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are all perfectly valid and serve as a way of grouping people together who may be interested in collaboration. Kolindigo 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There's nothing wrong with these categories, and I encourage more of them because they are useful to getting to know people here on Wikipedia by identifying them with their sex, language, religion etc. The reasons given to delete these categories, in my opinion, are not valid points. Also, these categories are very popular. If we remove one, we have to remove all other similar categories regarding language, political standpoints, etc., in order to be consequential. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:37 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is absurd. Wikipedians cannot be prevented from disclosing their sympathies and proclivities, so why prevent them from doing so in an organized and systematic manner? This request for deletion is the latest in a long lineage of misguided bids to deny Wikipedians the ability to quickly and conveniently describe themselves, which is unambiguously beneficial. The more we disclose, the more honest our endeavor. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had stopped replying to "keep" comments, but I feel that I must address this one. These user categories do nothing except divide Wikipedia editors into different camps on the basis of the controversial dimension of religion. Editors can still "quickly and conveniently" describe themselves through any number of userboxes without resort to any categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: You want to remove these categories because you find religion offensive? Seems like bias if you ask me. You don't happen to be atheist, no? EliasAlucard|Talk 09:54 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
    - Uhh ... nowhere did I state that I find religion offensive. I wrote that religious identifications can be potentially divisive. And whether I am an atheist or not is not at all relevant since (1) it has no bearing on the validity of my arguments (see ad hominem) and (2) Category:Atheist Wikipedians is part of this nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, thanks, I know what ad hominem is. Either way I don't think you have a legitimate case here. Your argument is that these religious categories are hurting Wikipedia as a whole. Care to give one actual example? Because I have never encountered this as a problem before. What are you basing your claims on? EliasAlucard|Talk 10:12 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
        That is not my argument. My argument is that: (1) these categories violate WP:NOT#SOCIALNET because they do not aid collaboration on articles; (2) personal self-identification that has no relevance to the encyclopedia project can be done on userpages and does not require any categories; (3) the categories are potentially harmful because they divide Wikipedians on the basis of a dimension that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia (i.e., they unnecessarily create internal factions); and (4) the categories can be misused (e.g., for the purpose of vote-stacking). So, in short, my argument is not that these categories are currently causing harm, but rather that they offer no present or potential benefits and may indeed be harmful. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Taking your points in reverse: 4.) so can any Wikipedian category, since they all, presumably denote potential collaborative interest in some way. 3.) A concern shared by others in the past. Though as I recall, the concerns were more about "comparison". Category names which stated preference and/or negativity (such as: Wikipedian Pastafarians who hate Agnostics). Simply stating what religion the user is shouldn't be divisive in and of itself. (WP:AGF.) 2.) Again, this could apply to any Wikipedian category. 1.) I'm curious as to how you don't think that these cannot aid in collaboration on articles. Anything that can be accused of facilitating "vote stacking" should also be useful in fostering other, more positive, forms of collaboration? - jc37 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In response to your arguments: 4) This one doesn't denote a potential collaborative interest. 3) Simply stating one's religion is not inherently divisive. However, a category that divides Wikipedians on the basis of something that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia is. 2) No, it would not. A category that states that a user has access to university libraries is directly relevant to the encyclopedia as is one that identifies interest in a given topic. Religious self-identification holds no value for encyclopedic collaboration. 1) You're right. The votestacking argument doesn't hold up since these categories are useless for collaboration (whether positive or negative). However, that still shouldn't allow Wikipedia to become a social networking forum. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom, having a list of all Wikipedians who identify to be something as vague as Sikh, Lutheran or Sunni isn't helpful at all. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the Keep voters haven't even read what this CfD is about. I considered supporting keep for some of the smaller sub-sub categories (Wikipedian Karaites, Vaishnava Wikipedians etc.), but they are so incomplete that they aren't helpful, too. If someone wants to find other Wikipedians who might be interested in improving articles about one religion, why not just contact the main contributors in this area and create some kind of WikiProject? Malc82 08:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea - Which is of course, one (of several) of the presumed uses for these categories : ) - jc37 10:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, yes. But it is a community encyclopaedia, and has a "private" side which is the user pages. Categories like this one are not "troublesome" and the users who form the community use them because they wish to do so. There are 199 people who use the "Atheist" category, and 105 who use the "Bright" category, and 137 who use the "Buddhist" category, and 150 who use the "Roman Catholic" category. And so on. Deleting these categories serves no purpose. It's just another nanny witchhunt. Surely there are better things to do on the WIkipedia than trouble oneself about deleting categories in User space. -- Evertype·✆ 10:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dislike userboxes and don't have any on my user page. Categories are a more subtle and less invasive way of conveying the same information. Kestenbaum 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" users who are not sure about information on a religon-related article can contact a member of that faith and verify if it is true or not --Java7837 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Information obtained from the personal experience of another user is not a valid source for a claim in an article. Such information constitutes second-hand original research. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is about as argumentative as it gets, and borders on the nonsensical. By this meter, no one's experience or knowledge can validly be used to build the encyclopedia on any subject whatsoever, as it must also be labeled (by the same token) second-hand original research. Can't we just assume good faith and presume that someone might ask the faith-related question to one of the appropriate faith, and knowing what is likely the right answer, be able to seriously narrow down the search for a proper reference (if the fact is indeed deemed in need of a supporting reference)?--Ramdrake 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not argumentative, that's policy. All information must be referenced by reliable published sources. Wikipedians are not reliable sources. As for your second point, adherents of a given religion are generally little help when it comes to "narrow[ing] down the search" for sources. The average follower of any given religion is not aware of reliable published literature on the religion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even more interesting, what if your question is say (just an example here) a question about Judaism and the user you're asking happens to be a Rabbi? I'd say such information could be considered somewhat more than "second-hand personal experience".--Ramdrake 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do you know that the editor to whom you've asked a question is really a rabbi and not someone posing as a rabbi? The only legitimate way to source content based on the writings of another editor is if those writings have been published in a reliable source (such as an academic journal). However, this hits on an interesting point. A rabbi probably is, more than the average person, aware of scholarly or religious literature on Judaism. However, in this case, you would need to look in Category:Wikipedians by profession rather than Category:Wikipedians by religion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then, if you are consequent with your own reasoning, you should recommend the deletion of all user categories, as any information gleaned from the expertise of these users cannot be considered a reliable source, and you can't verify for sure that they are indeed the experts they claim to be. Focusing on just religious categories goes counter to your argument, as it logically should apply to all categories. The fact is NO user category will ensure that the specific person you're asking the question of in this user category is able and competent to answer your question,any question.--Ramdrake 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That does not logically follow. Someone who is a biologist is, by definition, a specialist in the subject of biology. As such, it is not unreasonable to expect that they are aware of and/or have access to reliable published works about biology-related subjects. However, someone who is a Christian is not necessarily (and most likely is not) a specialist in the subject of Christianity. That's where the distinction lies. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, it's what you're saying that does not follow logically: more often than not, religion is based on a well-circumscribed (thus limited)set of written texts and/or oral traditions. It is usually at least as easy, and I would dare say easier for one follower of one faith to be well-acquainted whith his or her holy texts (or traditions, as may be) as it is for a biologist to be cognizant about all fields of biology. The scope of religion being that much more limited, it would be logically easier to master: just take the number of Christians who are as comfortable quoting scriptures as a physicist would be quoting the second law of thermodynamics. This is sounding more and more like you have a specific bias against religions.--Ramdrake 23:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me reply to each of your points in turn: (1) Articles about individual religions should, for the most part, not be based on their respective holy texts (except perhaps to source quotes from those texts). Keep in mind that these sources are hundreds of years of old and that their meaning is the subject of intense controversy among theologians. If theologians can't agree on a specific interpretation, I don't think we should write based on the interpretation of a regular adherent. (2) A biologist can contribute to articles on biology without being aware of all fields of biology, just as a theologian could contribute to articles on religion without being aware of all aspects of a given religion. However, being an adherent does not automatically make someone a theologian. (3) I do not have a bias against religions. Perhaps you will be convinced by the fact that I've nominated all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion (including those for atheists, agnostics, and so on). Or perhaps you will be convinced by the fact that probably less than 10 of my 9000+ edits are to articles about religion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is up to the individual user to include userbox on their User Page as a source of identifying one's belief. It can also help to conclude if the user is acting in accordance with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia standards. I do not believe it has any connection with "Wikipedia is not MySpace" by itself. Joseph C
- The religion userboxes are not the subject of this nomination; in fact, I (the nominator) would oppose an attempt to delete them. This nomination is only about the user categories, which I assume were created as a byproduct of template codes being copied and reused. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understood this thank you. I did not make my original point clear by that. I do not find anything wrong in grouping oneself into a category, which then can be easily found. (I also agree with a lot of above comments made for the "keep" vote side) Having a category makes it easier to find other users who might be interested in contributing to, or creating, an article involving that religion. Joseph C
    - Is there any reason to assume that an adherent of a particular religion has any interest in contributing to articles on that religion? I would guess that at least 75% of Wikipedians are religious; however, a much smaller percentage actually contributes to articles on religion. For instance, I am not a Sunni Muslim, yet I have a (weak) interest in Sunnism-related topics (mostly as an extension of my interest in the Middle East and North and East Africa). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are correct, however in the case of a smaller religious group membership, by categorizing, it would be far simpler for me to find another in the same group that I could ask (on his or her User Talk Page) if they were interested in helping. Joseph C
        Just a technical note: it is possible to find the adherents of a given religion by clicking "whatlinkshere" on the template page. See, for instance, this for User:UBX/Christian. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, these user categories won't help build the encyclopedia and can only serve to divide users. —ptk✰fgs 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and please delete those userboxes while you're at it. Let's get rid of this poisonous trash. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, two points. (A) There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that anyone can gather consensus to delete the userboxes. (B) The userboxes permit editors to express their personal identities. Since editors are volunteers, I think a relatively large degree of leeway should be granted as to what appears in userspace. It's when this extends to the category namespace that I have a problem. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony, setting aside your condescending rhetoric ("poisonous trash"? Yeesh!), did you vote twice? If your previous one was only a comment, then you should have labelled it as such (and joined your vote and comment together). As it stands, it just gives the impression that you're trying to pad the 'delete's. Bladestorm 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three reasons: 1, Not everyone who wants to be identified with a religion wants to clutter their user page with user boxes. If you delete the category, there will be no way for them to identify themselves. 2, The categories are useful to identify potential POV in contributions. 3, There’s no reason to assume that people are being divisive by having a limited number of categories. Last time I checked, anyone can create a category. If one doesn’t exist for your religion, nobody’s forcing you to use an existing one. This isn’t Wikipedians “being categorized” it’s Wikipedians “categorizing themselves.” Final thought: it isn’t “poisonous trash” to know someone else’s religion. Jaksmata 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see any reason to delete. If someone decides to spam all Muslim users with hate messages, it's that user who is being divisive and inflammatory and should be banned. You can't claim that the Muslim users themselves were being divisive and inflammatory by merely expressing their religious preference. We must remember that all contributors to Wikipedia are doing this for purely unselfish reasons, they have nothing to gain by contributing except a feeling of having done a good thing. We must encourage contributors and try to keep them interested. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia written by a community of volunteers and that means the community aspect is at least as important as the encyclopedia aspect. If cultivating that means becoming a little of MySpace, I certainly see no problem with it. Loom91 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that user categories and userboxes although not encyclopaedic in nature, may serve a purpose. First of all we are persons, not bots. This means that we have a personality and we try to distinguish ourselves from others. This info can be used to identify bias in posts without references. Having user categories may be used to locate other users with same interests and discuss before posting an article. This could be useful especially for controversial subjects such as religion.

Keep. I agree with Loom91 above, the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is totally indebted to millions of users. You stated that "In short, all pages should be targeted toward the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." But wouldnt this then state that all User pages should be deleted, as they have no encyclopedic value. The fact that one person who has a belief or an interest in one thing, wants to be able to see who else has these same interests or beliefs, is just fine. This would help Users to come together on projects and to better Wikipedia. This more seems to be an attack on religion, as expressed above, there would be many more categories that would meet this criteria for deletion. The fact that people want to come together should help Wikipedia become more of a community, and ultimately give better information for everyone to share. --Josh Matthews 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, as per yesterday's Category:Wikipedians by language CfD. These are the same arguments (potentially divisive and inflammatory, doesn't aid collaboration), and i believe they're invalid (or at least similarly valid) for basically the same reasons. Keep both, or delete both. (If anyone actually does start using these categories for social networking, instead of a foundation for collaboration, then this discussion can be raised again.) --Piet Delport 14:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but preferably rename most of the subcategories, i.e. the type "X-ist Wikipedians" becomes "Wikipedians interested in X-ism". I don't find it disturbing or sinister, but I do find it somewhat silly that I am categorised as a Dystheist Wikipedian when my userbox merely says I have an interest in dystheism. For lots of subcategories there are alternative userboxes, e.g. "user Pagan" and "user interested in Paganism", but both place you into the Pagan Wikipedians category, regardless. This makes no sense; interest is a wider concept than identification — users who declare an interest in X-ism might also be X-ists, or they might not. Just edit the userboxes to categorise pages into "religious interest" groupings, whether they declare an interest or state an identity. But this is a matter of broadening the existing categories, not deleting them. To answer two deletionist arguments: (1) I'm not persuaded that the abuse argument holds water. People who want to seek out users according to their religious affiliation can simply follow "What links here" from the relevant userbox template. Is there any means of facilitating contact for encyclopedic purposes which is not open to abuse? (2) Religion is divisive because "you can only have one religious affiliation" — this is no longer universally true in the pluralist, multicultural West, and throughout East Asia it was never true. The world's overflowing with dual-faith and multi-faith people. See my user-page for a start! Gnostrat 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Gnostrat. The text in the user box should agree with the categorization included. Keep in mind though, unlike the dystheism user box you mentioned, some user boxes are very specific. I have one that specifically declares my religious affiliation, and I keep the box with the intent of belonging to that category. In other words, I'm more than "Interested." Jaksmata 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then if these things were rationally organised, yours could be nested into the relevant "interested" category as a subcategory, i.e "interested plus". Although the thought did occur to me that having one big category that didn't distinguish the identifiers from the just-interesteds might help to allay the misperception by some people that the categories are POV-pushing, whilst still allowing them to facilitate encyclopedic cooperation. And in some cases, interested and identifier categories would not be large enough to be separately viable. Gnostrat 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piet Delport. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename. I recognize that there is a gray area here, but I do believe that being able to locate people knowledgable in specific religious traditions is useful to building the encyclopedia. However, I would support an effort to restruct the religious categories into the form "Wikipedians interested in X". Dragons flight 04:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cannot support the mass deletion of this entire category. With that said, there are many categories that should be assessed for merges. For example, do we really need all of the following cats? There is a lot of overlap in these groups:

Category:Agnostic Wikipedians (and its subcat)
Category:Antireligious Wikipedians
Category:Antitheist Wikipedians
Category:Apatheist Wikipedians
Category:Atheist Wikipedians (and its subcat)
Category:Dystheist Wikipedians
Category:Ignostic Wikipedians
Category:Irreligious Wikipedians (and its subcat)
Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians (and its five subcats, all of which are also categorized elsewhere)

Note that I don't claim they are all the same (as they are not), but some of those should probably be merged. And then we have the following:

Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa
Category:SubGenius Wikipedians
Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians and Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians
Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians

(the last two of which are subcats of Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians, which is MISSPELLED.)

...whose inclusion tends to support the assertions by the Delete !voters that the entire category is filled with junk. We also have Category:Wikipedians who wear the Hijab, which sounds more like a political category than a religious one, but that's debatable.

Those who wish to keep this category should start policing it and deleting the junk. Horologium t-c 05:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep All. No harm. Suggest merges separately. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all If political categories cannot exist neither should religous categories.--Sefringle^Talk 07:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like userboxes. Also when I was more active I found these useful for religion related articles. It's sometimes useful to know what Sikhs or Christian Scientists think of themselves or their theology when editing articles related to it. My Encyclopedia Americana states when writers are priests or work in Christian colleges. So why not have the same here?--T. Anthony 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm just going to be a dick, not read the discussion, and vote. Yeah, religion is important to a lot of people. So placing yourself in a user category for that religion is okay. And it can facilitate collaboration, if that's the standard we're using. YechielMan 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think that this is a good avenue for encouraging collaboration. --Jmbranum 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — and this is coming from someone who has dealt with multiple massive manipulations of consensus using these categories. That's right, on multiple occasions, I'd had to block and revert assholes who were using these categories to spam recruitment messages to hundreds of people from a given religion to go "win" a policy or deletion discussion. --Cyde Weys 08:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyde, could you give us a couple of such examples? Especially the ones where people were using it to spam to hundreds of other users?--Ramdrake 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is sometimes helpful to know a fellow editor's religious preference. Mike R 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was opposed to deletion before, because all I heard from those supporting deletion was vague warnings about the potential for abuse, but Cyde has now claimed actual examples of abuse (and I bet he'd be willing to provide diffs if requested). Many of the "keep" contingent are either userbox haters or those who like the idea of knowing another user's expressed religious beliefs. If you don't like having a userbox, either spell out your beliefs on your user page or do without. If you want to know another specific user's beliefs, go take a look at his or hers userpage. If they want to share, it'll be there. Horologium t-c 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Black Falcon, who put forward some very good reasons. If you want to profess your religion, do it on your user page. You don't need a category to do it. --Kbdank71 19:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above agnostic-atheist POV: if this category (and related subcategories) were deleted, then following your logic-reason all categories under Category:Wikipedians shall have to be deleted too (be it about profession, country, politics, language, etc.). Should this happen, on one hand it would appear that Wikipedia adopted a military regime [one of my backgrounds] with an uniformity of all users equally listed under the same parent category; on the other hand, it would mean one could not easily find those dwelling in fields of interest akin to ours (in the same way as we usually also get together in real life with those sharing our views, activities, etc.) and at the same time it would mean the end of the background diversity of wikipedian editors that build this encyclopedia [at least the current visible way], the same diversity that caracterizes our creative human condition in any personal or working field of the real life. --Lusitanian 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. Completely unnecessary, as you can easily add a couple of adjectives to your user page that perform the same purpose. It can also serve as a locus for religious POV-pushing and thus is contrary to the goals of the project. MER-C 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is expressing your religious faith on your user page or through a userbox rather than through a user category making WP any less (or more for that matter) of a soapbox? To me it comes down to the same thing. Besides, how is the simple statement (for example "I am a Zogist", or belonging to "Zogist Wikipedians" user category) a statement of religious opinion? Affirming that such simple, NPOV statements of fact ("I am a Zogist") turn Wikipedia into a soapbox then begs the question if expressing these preferences should be permitted at all on user pages, it even further begs the question whether user pages should be permitted at all. Do we really want to go down this road? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me.--Ramdrake 12:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the issue is really about facilitating collaboration, I do think that a user's identification as belonging to a religion can be helpful. The two Wikipedians who I know in real life are both adherents of my religion, both went to the same university as me, and, like me, have edited articles on Jewish biographical figures. (BTW, they have not listed themselves in the category.) I don't think user categories do much to facilitate collaboration, but if they do anything at all, religion categories should be left standing. YechielMan 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wikipedia is a community and the diversity of that community is expressed in the Wikipedian categories. The nomination is defective on its face for making a generic fallacy -- using its premise, no editor self-identification categories would be allowed whatsoever. So why religion should get special scrutiny is not part of the nomination, although some of the votes are giving voice to the personal religious intolerance of the voters. patsw 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Edit Userboxes to "Wikipedians interested in (drop in religion)." This will facilitate development of pages about each religion by providing links to interested editors. Remove categories from userboxes because there's a difference identifying and being interested in. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a DRV of this CfD debate has been requested at: [2]--Ramdrake 17:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The major concerns were that the categories are (1) not encyclopedic, violating WP:NOT; and (2) serve mainly to promote POV, with a potential to be divisive. Few of the keep rationales addressed point (1), while many seemed to ignore it outright. Several keep rationales addressed point (2), but did not refute it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by political ideology

Category:Anarchist Wikipedians
Category:Anti-communist Wikipedians
Category:Anti-socialist Wikipedians
Category:Capitalist Wikipedians
Category:Centrist Wikipedians
Category:Conservative Wikipedians
Category:Distributist wikipedians
Category:Green Wikipedians
Category:Independent Wikipedians
Category:Kemalist Wikipedians

Category:Leftist Wikipedians
Category:Liberal Wikipedians
Category:Libertarian Wikipedians
Category:Libertarian socialist Wikipedians
Category:Marxian Wikipedians
Category:Masculist Wikipedians
Category:Minarchist Wikipedians
Category:Moderate Wikipedians
Category:Progressive Wikipedians
Category:Religious Left Wikipedians

Category:Religious socialist Wikipedians
Category:Republican Wikipedians
Category:Rightist Wikipedians
Category:Social democratic Wikipedians
Category:Socialist Wikipedians
Category:Syndicalist Wikipedians
Category:Technocrat Wikipedians
Category:Theoretical Communist Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedian Classical Liberals
Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship

Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not Usenet, Myspace, Free Republic, or Democratic Underground. (Anyone who disagrees with the preceding statement can click here.) User categorization should only be used to the extent that it aids in writing an encyclopedia. These, however, help and may even encourage POV-pushing. Picaroon (Talk) 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think that showing these categories does entirely the reverse of POV-pushing. They show the POV of the individual in a clear and concise way and allow other edits to take that into account. There is nothing messianic or even proselytizing about any of these cats, just a simple statement of where the user is coming from. Galloglass 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. Individual editors can still express their views without having to be classified in categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or else rename all. It's a big leap of logic from categories to either POV pushing or political discussion forums, they're not about that. And if there's a perception of POV advocacy (which would apply equally to philosophical and religious categories by the way), we could exclude that by renaming them as "Wikipedians interested in...[Zog-ism/whatever]", which would allow the categories to promote coordination between people with similar interests, without in any way implying that people in those categories need actually be Zog-ists and so on. This might be a compromise that both sides could find acceptable. Gnostrat 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's precisely the issue. These aren't people who are interested in Zog-ism, but rather people who identify with Zog-ism. For instance, I'm an atheist, but I've never edited any article related to atheism. The same is true of political categories. Identifying with an ideology is not the same as having an interest in it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, which could be an argument for broadening categories, but not for deleting them. Interest doesn't exclude a statement of identification. Users who declare an interest in Zogism might also advocate it, or might not. Whatever it says on the userboxes, whether outright Zogist or just interested, they would all place people into the 'interested' category regardless. If people are determined to search out specifically pro-Zog userboxes, they're going to find them whether the categories are there or not. And I can't see how it's relevant which articles you edit in. I'm a Gnostic Pagan libertarian nationalist, but I edit articles in those areas because that's what I'm knowledgeable in. I know the difference between holding a point of view and being able to write about it neutrally. And if people know where I stand, they can compensate for me if I do inadvertently let anything slip through. (They can also get that information from userboxes; it doesn't affect the case for categories either one way or the other. There are other reasons for having categories, such as facilitating cooperation.) Gnostrat 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I can definitely see this playing a legitimate encyclopedic role in some respects; say you're editing an article about Minarchism, and someone brings up a topic that you're not sure about. It would then make sense to contact other Minarchist editors to try and solve your dispute. I don't feel it's being used in that way by most, but the case is there and it's not doing any harm otherwise. --Haemo 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Stuff like this helps to build a community and the community helps to build the project. This is hardly divisive anyways and people will never be soulless automatons. --MichaelLinnear 08:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These categories are at the heart of wikipedia. In a perfect world we would all be POV free and produce perfect POV free articles. However I have to break the news to you, we don't live in a POV free world and every one of us has a POV. The above categories enable people to show what their own POV is and lets other editors take account of this and amend or change articles accordingly. That is all these categories are, a way of showing the views of the individual editors in a very important area of life: politics. Having spent the last two days browsing all the relevant policies on wikipedia I can find no valid policy reason for their deletion. Galloglass 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can show what their opinions are without categories; it's called your userpage. Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree these categories should be kept. Brain40 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think these categories should be kept. Why? Well, why is it just these that are being deleted? Why not all the others? My point is, people claim these are divisive, that's politics! Anything political can be considered divisive from a certain point-of-view! What I'm trying to say is, in my opinion either all categories should be kept, or none at all, as they are all the same, religious, political, sexuality, language, computer and educational categories are all the same and can be considered divisive, but that doesn't mean that the categories are bad, it just means that there are users across Wikipedia that have many different beliefs. Brain40 16:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake what I'm saying for wanting to keep all categories, I do support the deletions of a few in the past... Brain40 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is beyond obvious. The only conceivable purpose of any of these is to inflame or push a POV. —ptk✰fgs 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all it is userspace, and users are entitled to their userspace.--Sefringle^Talk 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is the category namespace. Editors can still display userboxes in userspace without having to be classified in categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And to clarify, user's own pages are not going to be touched at all whether this results in "keep" or "delete", except to remove the categories. Userboxes will remain userboxes. --Iamunknown 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Next, someone's going to want to delete the religion categories and the Wikipedian by country categories and Category:Gay Wikipedians... where will it end? Divisive? I guess if you want to be offended by something, you could complain. But the divisiveness is pure hypothetical here – "I'm offended because that user is in the United States category... I'm offended because User X is in the Buddhist category... I'm offended because User X is in the centrist category..." Seriously, who says those kinds of things? Who actually has a problem with these types of categories because they themselves find them polemic? And why are the categories an issue, but not the userboxes (or userpages) that can convey this same type of information? It all sounds silly to me, especially considering the "World Citizenship", "Independent", and "Centrist" categories are somehow being portrayed as divisive. These categories are voluntary; if someone does not want to make public their views, that's their prerogative. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize the religion categories were actually up for deletion. Wow. For the most part, divisive can be used to delete just about every user category here (except for maybe "admin/bureaucrat/..." and the language categories). We need to draw the "divisive line" somewhere, but these categories are not across it. -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment has been deleted from here by Picaroon as a personal attack on them. Now reading the comment although the language was strong, in no place did it refer to the person who deleted it. Picaroon please be good enough to re-instate it. Galloglass 01:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who he was referring to, although I believe I know. I warned Voievod (talk · contribs) about it on his talk page and explained to him that he could make a new comment if he wished. He has yet to do so. Picaroon (Talk) 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read it another two times. Still no personal attack in it. Please re-read it yourself again as I think you are reading things into it that are not there. Galloglass 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these categories have no redeeming encyclopedic value and are contrary to the project's goals. People wishing to disclaim biases can add a short sentence to their user page. They are entirely unnecessary. MER-C 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find that argument very persuasive. If was a diehard Zogist (to take the example from above), and was determined to edit articles and recast them from a Zogist perspective, then labelling myself as a zogist would actually help to maintain NPOV by alerting other editors to my own bias. I have seen this work in practice: a wikipedia editor was a councillor on one of the London Boroughs, and was quite open about his political affiliations. He was a scrupulously careful editor, taking a rigorously neutral POV, and although several editors appeared to be watching his edits closely, there was no remotely plausible accusation of breach of NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This project is becoming less and less free.--BMF81 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No one is forced to use these categories. It is useful in discussions for exactly the reason cited above by BrownHairedGirl. It is sometimes helpful to know whom you are arguing with. Of course, it is also possible to adopt a NPOV such that there is no reason to self-identify, & it is true that any really significant bias will be immediately revealed by the edits. I myself don't use this, but if i were editing primarily political topics, I probably would. DGG 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I see no harm, and stated bias is better than unstated bias. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Main concern is WP:NOT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monarchist Wikipedians
- Category:British royalist Wikipedians
- Category:German monarchist Wikipedians
- Category:Wikipedians who support the Canadian Crown

Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – These affiliations can be expressed via userboxes. There is no need for user categories. These are not categories that further collaboration, as one's political affliation says nothing about one's ability to contribute to certain articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians, delete the rest. We don't need to be to specific here, and for the reccord; Germany has now monarch! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians Brain40 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all four, these categories are divisive and do not aid in collaboration. There are plenty of magazines and web fora if you want to connect with other people who have similar opinions on monarchism; Wikipedia is not one of these web fora. Picaroon (Talk) 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well if you're getting rid of these political categories (among others) why are you keeping others? Brain40 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Which ones are we keeping? Let us know so that they may also be reviewed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Well I know Category:Communist Wikipedians and Category:Anti-fascist Wikipedians aren't being reviewed. Brain40 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply It appears that Category:Communist Wikipedians is a child of Category:Leftist Wikipedians which is up for review here. Category:Anti-fascist Wikipedians is a child cat of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, which would be a good area to do a group nomination on shortly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these categories have no redeeming encyclopedic value and are contrary to the project's goals. People wishing to disclaim biases can add a short sentence to their user page. They are entirely unnecessary. MER-C 09:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well are you going to review Category:Communist Wikipedians and Category:Anti-fascist Wikipedians? Since I see no difference between the two and all the other categories. Brain40 12:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for other political categories. The same argument holds--it puts the user into context. I don't see them as divisive--I recognize them as real political issues, but the civil wars have not yet started. DGG 00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Main concern is WP:NOT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WSPQ Wikipedians
- Category:Political Centrist Wikipedians
- Category:Political Conservative Wikipedians
- Category:Political Liberal Wikipedians
- Category:Political Libertarian Wikipedians

Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – These affiliations can be expressed via userboxes. There is no need for user categories. These are not categories that further collaboration, as one's political affliation says nothing about one's ability to contribute to certain articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Less clear to me, but seems solid enough.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote. What does "solid enough" mean? How does this help the encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me, but I don't need your permission to register an opinion. Regardless, as I said, I'm less clear that these are as useful as direct statements of political position because of the the source of the quiz. But the actual category names seem okay.--Mike Selinker 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: polemical user categorizations according to point of view are harmful to the encyclopedia. These should not have been restored. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, did you read Category:WSPQ Wikipedians? While I think you could have valid reasons to delete (such as not seeing a collaborative purpose to these, since they seem to merely be quiz results), I'm not understanding how what you said above specifically applies. - jc37 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bilge? That's a derogatory term, not a reason for deletion. Why do you think it's bilge? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete all - these categories have no redeeming encyclopedic value and are contrary to the project's goals. People wishing to disclaim biases can add a short sentence to their user page. They are entirely unnecessary. MER-C 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as before. The reasons (and the opinions based on no reason at all) are just the same as above. Except that it is even less true that this sort of generalization can possibly be seen as divisive. One of the eds. who wishes to delete them has chosen not to have a user p. at all and redirect it to the talk page. Perfectly OK, but I hope he doesn't ask us all to do the same. Ditto about these--it's a matter of preference. DGG 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Free spelling on Wikipedia is a preference for users to spell all words, except for proper nouns, however they see fit. At the moment a totally unworkable preference and one not practiced. But the preference remains and as Wikipedia content is composed of words, I think a relevant category. - Grumpyyoungman01 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's something that an be expressed in a userbox, but (as noted above) it's not workable in an encyclopedia and thus cannot even be used for collaboration on anything other than an article on the concept. Currently, the category has only one editor associated with it. Horologium t-c 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't buy this as a political stance.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, joke category with one member. —ptk✰fgs 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-This one doesn't assist collaboration, especially with only one user in it :P. Suitable for a userbox, but not a category—arf! 09:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and end the madness. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves "jack of all trades"

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I consider myself as belonging to this category, but choose not to list myself there as a more precise explanation of an editor's style on their user page is more helpful. Jack of all trades is not a simple enough concept to be given justice by a category, and it seems could only do so with subcategories. - Grumpyyoungman01 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One common defense of user cats is that they help people coordinate article development -- the "I'm good at everything and just as widely interested" category doesn't sound very useful, in that regard. The other option seems to be an ego category, even less appealing for me personally. Category:Wikipedians with giant dicks? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Luna Santin. ~~This category is unpopulated.~~Horologium t-c 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically "wikipedians who are interested in many things."--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geek Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Geek/Nerd Wikipedians. Doesn't seem to benefit building a project in any direct way. If we do insist on having a "cutesy" user cat, we may as well limit it to one, rather than two. Just my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, as per Luna Santin. ~~This cat is unpopulated.~~ Horologium t-c 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree with Black Falcon. Heptite (T) (C) (@) 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't buy this as a political or lifestyle stance.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see this being used for any kind of meaningful collaboration. --Haemo 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a category that lends itself to collaboration, and could possibly be used as for mischief. ~~The category is unpopulated; maybe a speedy?~~ Horologium t-c 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, me too. So what?--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impossible to be a collaborative category, it's too vague and useless. --Haemo 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Absurdist Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Another empty cat. Unclear if anyone was ever in the group. See above. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an empty such cat seems, um, absurd Mikebar 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Empty category. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nerd Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Geek/Nerd Wikipedians. Doesn't seem to benefit building a project in any direct way. If we do insist on having a "cutesy" user cat, we may as well limit it to one, rather than two. Just my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No different than "Geek".--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aren't we all =P No real need for category. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see my comments for "geek", as Mike Selinker says. --Haemo 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and end the madness. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian barefooters

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Another empty category, with~~ a rather bizarre attempt to link barefoot people and barefoot (unshod) horses. Horologium t-c 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to speedy all of the unpopulated categories jc37 has discovered? If they are empty, they aren't needed, unless they are being depopulated when they are nominated, which would be a bad thing. Horologium t-c 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no apparent collaborative merit, and is empty. --Haemo 08:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pregnant Wikipedians

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Unpopulated category,~~ transient condition. (Wikipedians who are pregnant would require removal from the group upon childbirth). Horologium t-c 17:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Transient.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transient, unpopulated, not useful for collaboration. --Haemo 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with low bone density

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this category helps build an encyclopedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Essentially unpopulated category.~~ One user in cat, now editing under another name, which is not a member of the cat. Not particularly encyclopedic, and no links to an article. Horologium t-c 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has no apparent collaborative merit; I have asthma -- that doesn't make me an expert, or at all knowledgeable about it. --Haemo 08:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who fear clowns

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this category helps build an encyclopedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet any test Mikebar 14:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Unpopulated category~~ with no encyclopedic usage. Horologium t-c 16:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with nits

Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't seem terribly useful, to me, in terms of project work -- users looking to coordinate development of the nits article can use the talk page just fine. Not sure if this may have been affected, but the userbox which seems to have populated this category has very few transclusions -- very small user cats don't strike me as being useful, either, personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something that is trivial at best, transient and not useful for collaboration. Horologium t-c 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No idea how this is useful.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transient condition, no apparent collaborative merit here. --Haemo 08:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination also includes the following:

These user categories fail the requirement of "provid[ing] a foundation for effective collaboration" set forth in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Most of the pages placed in the categories are there due to transclusions of various userboxes. I have no issue with the userboxes (Wikipedia editors are volunteers and thus deserve a lot of leeway as to what appears in their userspace), but the categories seem entirely unnecessary. The categories are too broad and non-specific to leave open the possibility of a likely correspondence between identity and interests. I think it's fair to say that biologist are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to biology, but I doubt a good case can be made that mothers are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to maternity. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Presumably, most of these are a sub-group of Category:Wikipedians who have had sex (plus Category:Wikipedians who have adopted a child, plus Category:Wikipedians who do not have children - for whatever reason). Most of these sound like great userbox material to me, but I have to agree that there is little use for the categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if users wish to self-identify, let them. It's not like it harms the project. -N 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Users can self-identify through various userboxes, which are not included in this deletion nomination. In fact, if anyone was to nominate them for deletion, I would oppose the nomination. The categories, however, serve no useful purpose and thus should not be retained per WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no collaborative merit. Categories are not for personal self-identification; that's what your userpage is for. --Haemo 08:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More imbecilic crap. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Being a father and grandfather mysef, I surely want to keep this one. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy keep per this being a WP:POINT nomination. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate Category:Wikipedians by language and all its subcategories for deletion. Yes, that's all of the "Wikipedians by languages" categories maintained by WP:BABEL. As with so many categories nominated on this page, these too do not help the encyclopedia and push it in the direction of MySpace instead. In addition, speaking a language is an inherently political act, so the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by political issue, recently confirmed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4, can be taken as a strong precedent. —An gr 20:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wikipedia is a multi-language project. The classification of editors by language helps collaboration efforts related to translation (of sources or of other-language Wikipedia articles). So, these categories do help the encyclopedia. Also, speaking a language can be a political act, but it is false to state that it is inherently a political act. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Translation work is provided by WP:TRANSL; translators are found in Category:Available translators in Wikipedia. The Babel categories are not used for that. Note especially that being able to speak a language does not imply being able to translate it. Translation takes some training, some skill, and some experience, not to mention the willingness to do the translation. —An gr 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. WP:POINT was just incinerated there. Um, Vociferous Oppose, due to common sense. Horologium t-c 21:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What common sense? That it somehow helps the English language Wikipedia to know that one person speaks Welsh at a beginning level, while another speaks Moldovan at an intermediate level? No way. —An gr 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Why don't we just delete all user categories then? This classification can help translation and interwiki relations. bibliomaniac 1 5 Join or die! 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, Category:Available translators in Wikipedia is the category for finding people to translate. The Babel categories aren't for that. They aren't for anything encyclopedic. —An gr 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep WP:POINT. -N 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not WP:POINT. Unlike the translator categories, which provide an encyclopedic service, these categories contribute only to the MySpacification of Wikipedia, as well as being potentially divisive and inflammatory. —An gr 21:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who read Orwell. Based on the discussion below, This at least shouldn't be a sub-category of Wikipedians by language. (and has little to do with linguistics overall). If merged, it should then become a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians who read Orwell. However, that category doesn't exist! So anticipating a future nom to rename/upmerge by merging all to the Orwell-related category now. - jc37 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User nws
Category:User nws-1
Category:User nws-2
Category:User nws-3
Category:User nws-4
Category:User nws-5
Category:User nws-N
- Category:User ns (added before any !votes)
- Category:User ns-1 (added before any !votes)

"Newspeak"; another joke category whose inclusion in the Language section is doubleplusungood. I'd like to see a consensus where any language that does not have an ISO 639 categorization does not get a Wikipedia category. Articles about the language or dialect are fine, but we don't need six user cats for something that appeared in one book. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as nom. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Into the memory hole, doubleplusunfacilitates wikicollab. —ptk✰fgs 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubleplusdelete - There will never be a Wikipedia in this language, so this isn't useful. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand Newspeak - It has its own article, and is related to at least two other Orwellian works, and its article offers reference to topical cultural references such as soundbites, and so on. So collaboration usage isn't in doubt. But more than a single category is too much in this case. (You either understand it, or you don't.) One of these days I am going to get around to nominating the hordes of redundant duplicative (and/or babelised) userboxes for "merging" at WP:TFD. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the merge/rename/deBabelization if the category is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. It really doesn't belong there, any more than the Internet Slang cat (which is up for deletion as well) belongs there. Horologium t-c 17:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a target category. Merge into a single category entitled Category:Wikipedians interested in Newspeak and move to a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which is a much better fit. Horologium t-c 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a language, and serves absolutely no collaborative merit. ---Haemo 08:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop wasting our time on this trash. Just take it out and shoot it. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubleplusunkeep. AgentPeppermint 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Jc37. A very reasonable solution—arf! 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by gender and its three subcategories organise users by gender: male, female, and transgender. The categorisation of users seems to be almost exclusively the result of various userboxes, listed at the top of each subcategory's page. I think users should be allowed to identify their sex or gender via a userbox, especially since it can aid communication, prevent confusion in comments, and allow the avoidance of "he or she", "she or he", "s/he", "s(he)", and the like. However, I see no purpose to categorising users based on gender. It serves no encyclopedic end and deleting the categories (unlike deleting the userboxes) is not invasive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This one is not controversial; nobody is going to seach for collaborators by gender. It's another case of userboxen linked with needless categorization. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad. –Pomte 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Here's a fun one. Typically when we have 2 or 3 categories which together are all-inclusive, we would delete at least one, since it's typically a negative or "not" category. In this case, each is "positive cat to themselves, and a "not" category to the others. (This user is female, but not male or transgender; This user is male, but not female or transgender; This user is transgender, but not male or female.) While I can definitely see collaboration possibilities by "extension" (such as on women's rights issues, or even understanding first hand about pregnancy), these are just too "broad". Narrower categories should handle such collaboration benefits (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I generally support basic user data for categories, this is just too big.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no collaborative merit, at all. Incredibly vast self-identification category with no real merit. --Haemo 08:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, user categories should describe groups who will work together on a group of articles. What's the plan here, collaboration on all articles about males? —ptk✰fgs 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge Category:User ipa-N to Category:User ipa-5. The rest weren't tagged, so the question of whether this should be babelised is open for future discussion. - jc37 10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category, by its Babel convention, is nonsensical, since nobody can claim to be a "native speaker" of a universal phonetics guide. However, considering the other cats on orthography, a strong case can be made for merging this into the already-existing Category:User ipa-5, which identifies the user as being able to contribute at an advanced level. The userboxen associated with both have the similar verbiage ("This user has a complete understanding of IPA" for the -5 cat; "These users fully understand the IPA" for the -N cat). Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:User ipa-5, as nom. Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I'm not even sure we need a 5-level, as that is reserved for a "professional" understanding. Also not sure these categories should even be in the babel system. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:User ipa. This is a language-related category, so using the babel naming convention would seem appropriate, though it only requires a single category and shouldn't be a "numbered" category. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ipa-N to ipa-5, but leave the rest as they are. People do have different levels of understanding IPA, for instance, one might roughly know the IPA chart for english but not the universal range of symbols, while another might know the whole alphabet but not be able to read it as "fluently" as a third. Numbered categories are helpful here. - Zeibura^(talk) 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete Category:User fr-ca (the other cat wasn't tagged). No prejudice against recreation, if it has a broader membership. - jc37 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories are duplicative, and only two users are listed in fr-ca, which, despite its more general categorization, specifically refers to Quebec French, not a general Canadian French, which could include Acadian French. Recommend merging Category:User fr-ca to Category:User fr-qc. (The question of whether we need fr-qc's six subcats is something that will be addressed in the future.) Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom. Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both assuming there are no significant differences between this and French the rest of the world speaks, which I don't think there is. Merge if no consensus for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fate of these should be ruled by any precedent existing regarding local variants of a given language, like say, American English and British English. These variants differ from idiomatic French by a similar scope, even though they are for the most part mutually intelligible. To answer VegaDark, there is at least as much if not more difference between either Canadian French or Quebec French and idiomatic French than there is between British (idiomatic English) and American English--Ramdrake 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we should even have "British English" and "American English" cats - they are both English, one category is good enough. It's rediculous to think someone would need to translate between the two, or any other regional dialect of English, which would be the purpose of the categories. The rule of thumb on these should be "Does the average speaker of language A need a translator to be able to understand a person speaking language B? If yes, then it deserves a category. If no, then it doesn't. Get rid of all these "Australian English", "Southern English", etc. categories. VegaDark (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See the rationale which has been discussed below at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User en-us-ca and subcats. Some browsing through the ISO 639-3 data indicates that there are only 5 "recognized" variants of French (French, Cajun French, Picard, Walloon, and the extinct Zarphatic; no Quebecois, although it is noted as a dialect) and three of English (English, Scots, and Yinglish, which is by definition a secondary language). Part of the issue is that Wikipedia is written, not spoken, and while there may be notable differences between spoken American English and British English, the differences are relatively minor when using the more formal written form one is expected to use in Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are many notable differences between different written forms of English. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well there are two members of Category:User fr-ca. One uses Template:User fr-ca-1, and the other uses User:Laverick Phoenix/fr-ca. The former, then, is in the wrong category (which I'll fix in a moment), and the latter then becomes the only member of the category. How about we sidestep the possibly controversial debate, and just Delete, due to a single member, with no prejudice against it being recreated in the future if it gains 4 or more members? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC) "Users" instead of "Wikipedians", redundant to the correctly named Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill - enjoy > like and Users > Wikipedians - per current convention. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge to duplicate category, as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians in Albania. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Babel categories are supposed to be for languages, not stuff like this. Also redundant to Category:Albanian Wikipedians. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Albanian Wikipedians, per nom. (I wouldn't oppose renaming to Category:Wikipedians from Albania and reverse-merging Category:Wikipedians in Albania, instead.) - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Albanian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Albania. The "from" convention appears to be less common than "in", although I think that "from" is a better wording. In any case, we should end up with only one category. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed the idea that eventually all the "...in location" categories should be renamed to "...from location", for various reasons. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or does the nomination still not make any sense? Anyway, merge with Category:Wikipedians in Albania to the "from" variation if that convention has been established. –Pomte 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what these categories are for, but the only pages in them are user subpages of User:A.M.R.. Does not look useful at all. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More eponymous user categories. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity cats. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User IntS
Category:User IntS-1
Category:User IntS-2
Category:User IntS-3
Category:User IntS-4
Category:User IntS-5

"These users speak internet slang" - Don't need babel categories for this. There will never be a Wikipedia written in internet slang. Not useful. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand internet slang. (Or, alternatively, "...who use...".) This is not a language. Even the article calls it jargon. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the merge/rename/deBabelization if the category is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. Like the newspeak category above, this doesn't belong in the language cat. Horologium t-c 17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a target category. Merge into a single category called Category:Wikipedians interested in Internet Slang and move as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which is a much better fit. Horologium t-c 03:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I think my feelings are clear on this topic (although see above comment). Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I think this category is mostly a joke. It's not a language, and I'm pretty sure most of the editors using this are not, in fact, interested in Linguistics. --Haemo 08:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More bilge. Stuff like this should just be speedied. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I disagree for two reasons. First, speedy deleting any category may leave a lot of redlinks, making recreation of the category very likely. Second, "not useful" is a deletion criterion when it comes to categories, templates, and redirects, but I'm wary of it being a speedy deletion criterion, given the inherent subjectiveness of the term. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This user listens to Katamari Fortissimo Damacy" - Unsuitable babel category. Katamari Fortissimo Damacy is a soundtrack and not even a band, so even if this were named properly I don't think this would be a suitable category, due to members only being able to collaborate on a single article. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This could be renamed to match other cats under Category:Wikipedians who own albums? - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless and unhelpful in supporting the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should be in this category by default, as this is Wikipedia policy. Not useful as all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. This one's a no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good ol' All-Inclusive Delete - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody should be in this one automatically. Remove category --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CG 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is sort of like a "duh" category. bibliomaniac 1 5 Join or die! 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if they don't they won't be Wikipedians for long. --Haemo 08:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author request (CSD G7). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians who currently work at or have worked in the past at WEGL 91 FM, the campus radio station at Auburn University" - We don't need to categorize based on previous employment, let alone something as non-notable as this. Would set precedent for thousands of other useless categories if kept. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There are millions of employers out there, we don't need to open up that can of worms. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm just imagining cats for every radio station... Every Fast-food establishment (McDonald's has hired how many employees?)... Or even Wal-Mart... - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Imagine the possibilities... (don't even want to think about the huge mess of categories) --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Comment - Delete No problem. I'm OK with moving to speedy deletion. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep, but should not be considered a precedent for other categories. - The main debate seemed to be between what they (and others) call themselves - cancer survivors - and the concern about setting a "survivor" precedent. And there was no consensus to rename. - jc37 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great these people survived cancer, but we don't need a category for it. Sets precedent for other "survived" categories such as "Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane", which I don't think we want. Can't see how this category helps build Wikipedia, a userbox seems sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per nomNeutral, as per Bladestorm's comment below. This one seems to be a bit more justifiable, but I don't want to see some of its potential progeny. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think "survived" is besides the point. They've had cancer, and, I would presume, may have a bit of an interest, and may know a bit about it. In terms of collaboration possibilities, experiencing cancer is absolutely no different than experiencing a specific location or alma mater or a sport, or a video game or whatever. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: If we allow this, pretty soon we are going to have a whole bunch of disease categories... (Wikipedians with HIV, Tuberculoses, etc.) --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we already do. See Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition. Also, perhaps the answer is to figure out a name to merge this and Category:Wikipedians with Cancer, besides the generic "interested in"... ("Wikipedians who have had cancer", similar to the "from location" categories?) - jc37 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize, keep for now - Yes, this one was strongly modeled after similar boxes for other user boxes like psychological conditions. Some of those are downright scary. Ok, I'm all for having a consistent policy but you cannot vote cancer survivors out without getting rid of all medical condition boxes. It may also lend to the credentials of some authors in editing related articles. Besides, let's look at some others like Wikipedians who have Poodles and other fluff. I'd pick cancer as more important than pets or speaking California English any time. Mikebar 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the category meets 2 of the VegaDark principles for a good category: Categories relating to an editor's areas of expertise - Including occupation, education, skills, known languages, and experience. These categories are helpful because they show that the editor already has some "real life" knowledge on certain topics, and other editors may need that expertise to help them edit other articles on Wikipedia. Categories relating to interests that a user may want to edit, same reasoning. Mikebar 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you say just because you survive a disease it doesn't make you an expert. There is alot of expertise if you've come to learn a condition, as I have and have helped others so if the strong disagree look into it, it could be pruned to conditional "experts" but that may be as subjective as all expertise in the wikipedia editing realm. Done. Mikebar 10:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this and the other categories is that this is for people who survived (and implies recovery) of a ailment, wheras the others are for a current condition. As for your other points, yes, this is a personal experience, but writing based on that experience would be original research. Also the stuff in my sandbox is just a copy of the current UCFD proposed guideline page, I haven't had time yet to modify it to what I think the guidelines should actually be. They may be more likely to collaborate on cancer-related articles, however, so I could see a rename. I don't like the "Survived" part of this mostly, for the reason I brought up in the nom statement - We could start seeing "survived" categories for anything- Car accidents, being shot, any number of the hundreds of diseases out there. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support any logical change but consider this: if you 'have cancer then you are a survivor and if you are in remission (or "cured") you are also a survivor but a survivor does not "have" cancer (it's gone) so you'd be reducing the group for no good reason, hence the inclusive "survived" encompasses stricken and cured both and that builds the enclucivity such a category would want to embrace. Mikebar 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you meant inclusivity? Anyway, "survivor" is, of course, welcome in the userbox text. The problem here is that there are category structures, and several editors are concerned that this may be considered "precedent", rather than an exception. This is why I suggested "...have had...", since I presume it would result in the same "inclusivity" that you'd like to see? - jc37 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's strength in numbers, and if people want to come together like this, how does it damage the project? -N 11:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is just silly. How does it hurt the project? If you're worried about other possible future categories, rather than this actual one, then wait for those categories to show up and address them when the time comes. But arguements to the tune of, "well, this one isn't so bad, but one in the future might be, so let's delete this one" don't hold any water. Bladestorm 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a good point. Changed my vote above to Neutral. Horologium t-c 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People who have survived cancer probably have researched about it, and have first hand experiences. I would say that it helps the project. bibliomaniac 1 5 Join or die! 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How does this help the project? If you want a userbox, have at it. But a category isn't necessary for cancer survivors to be able to find each other and it doesn't ensure well-written or properly sourced articles. Addressing Category:Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane when it's created will be difficult to do when the Keep crowd points out that we kept Cancer survivors, so that sets a precedent. --Kbdank71 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, would you oppose some sort of rename, which would remove the word "survivor"? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedian Cancer Survivor - probably whay it should have been Mikebar 11:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like it helps the project. --- RockMFR 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I like X better than Y" categories are generally not useful. This isn't an exception. Sets precedent for any number of "prefer x over y" categories if kept. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Another no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content - since category names must follow the same restrictions as userboxes, per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Naming conventions (Wikipedian sub-categories). - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator -- Delete if you want. I dont much care. Underpopulated anyway. I am still allowed to keep Userbox though, yes? Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup! No userboxen are deleted as a result of discussions on this page. --Iamunknown 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CG 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no conceivable collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom—arf! 08:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was depopulated and speedy deleted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All other political wikipedian categories have been speedy deleted and endorsed by deletion review, the only reason this got by was because it was uncategorized. Additionally, this category doesn't help Wikipedia at all. Let me also point out that this refers to instant run-off voting in the real world, not Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. It's not a useful category, and it's potentially divisive. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify, the deletion "endorsed" was: "Wikipedians by political issue and sub-cats". - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. And if this were categorized properly at the time, this would have been in that category, and deleted along with the rest. If this ends up being kept, it would set a double standard. VegaDark (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, author request Sean William @ 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for someone's userpages. Numerous similar categories have been deleted in the past, not useful, would set precedent for 4,640,333 other similar categories, one for each user. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, it's a vanity category. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Eponymous category for a user, which should be a speedy deletion criteria. Else we might have: Category:Jc37's userpages or Category:Jc37's favourite articles : ) - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Hey, feel free. I hadn't seen any policy specifically against it, so was doing it for my own convenience. Hadn't considered the ramifications when I did it, and was even admittedly tired at the point that I created it...so by all means! :) --CWSensation^t 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD. There was no consensus for the merge target, so I picked current naming convention at Category:Wikipedians by technology. Someone can tag/nominate the other one if they wish. - jc37 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "prefer" category. Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD already exists, and we certainly don't need both categories. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per nom. Duplicate category. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Though I think that the target might be a suitable cantidate for deletion (or at least renaming - "who use"?) as well. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree to that, just wanted to get this category out of the way first. VegaDark (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redundant category. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD. "Support" doesn't make as much sense. If nothing else, 'Support' is saying who you want to win in some battle. 'Prefer' is saying which you personally choose. The former is divisive. The latter is not. Bladestorm 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "prefer" implies comparison, and can be considered "divisive" as well. - jc37 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if so, it's certainly far less divisive than to actively root for one side or the other. At the very least, support is external and preference is internal, no? If possible, I'd like every "Merge" vote to say which name they want to merge to. Bladestorm 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD for the reasons stated by Blade. TJ Spyke 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the target category is all that appropriate, I just thought the first category was a little worse - How about we merge both to Category:Wikipedians interested in HD DVD? VegaDark (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current convention of Category:Wikipedians by technology and it's sub-cats (and sub-sub-cats) is "Wikipedians who use...". - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD. We'll have to nominate the other cat separately, or relist this discussion to include it, otherwise, just rename this one for now, until the other is nominated. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a myspace-style grouping, not something which would help in building an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No purpose. --- RockMFR 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 07:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User el? translates as "This user does not understand Greek." This should have been nuked with all of the -0 Babel cats, but because of its nonstandard construction, apparently was missed. Delete as per precedent. Horologium t-c 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense babel category level. VegaDark (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "not" category. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm getting better at it Mikebar 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Although the userbox is humorous and I think it should be kept (as it happens with the Klingon language or the userbox "I am a Jedi" and many others), I don't think it constitutes a category... OP8 02:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge all to Category:User en-us-ca. - jc37 07:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-us-ca (Wikipedians who speak Californian English). Has six subcats, including one that is not formatted like the others. Do we really need this many cats/subcats for what is, at most, a regional dialect? The userbox is fine, but the Babel-style cats are more needless splintering. Recommend Delete All. I will see what we get for consensus here before submitting the next batch; the English language cats are a fine source of fussy categorizations and bizarre subcats. Horologium t-c 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been a proponent of deleting most of these regional dialect categories for a while now. The purpose of the babel category system is to find others who speak a language, you will never need to do this for something such as "Californian English". We should only keep dialect babel categories if the dialect is significantly different from the main language, enough so that seeking out someone who is familiar with that dialect would actually be worthwhile. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, keep. Helps me bond with other, like, people from my state on the project, man. -N 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what ((User California)) is for. It sorts people who are in or from California for collaboration purposes, and it even has its own nifty little userbox, if that's your sort of thing. Babel categorization is unwieldy even without irrelevant categories; adding more is just throwing chaff in the radar. I have no problem with sorting by location (check my user page and you'll see that), but this is not, IMO, the appropriate way. YMMV. Horologium t-c 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:User en-us-ca. I don't think we need a babel breakdown for regional dialects, but I do think that a single cat for such dialects is "useful and appropriate". There's a difference between living in a location, and speaking the dialect. Ask any Scotsman who's moved to London : ) - And I will "Weak oppose" spelling out the cat name. It's a language (or at least a language dialect), so no reason to not use the babel formatting convention. - jc37 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what scenerio would a user actually seek out someone in this category for any purpose that would help the encyclopedia, that seeking out someone in any of the regular en categories wouldn't accomplish? VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This speaks to the next round of deletions I was planning to propose. The Category: user en cat has a huge number of sub-cats that deal with regionalization, by country (Ireland and its two subcats, US and its six subcats, Canada and its four subcats, Australia and its eight subcats, Great Britain, which is tucked into EN-3), by parts of countries (California and its six subcats, New York and its recursive subcat, New England and its recursive subcat, Liverpool/Merseyside) and by other factors ("Lazy English" and its six subcats, "Mixed English"). For those keeping track, that is 51 subcats for one language, and nobody has yet created English language cats for India, New Zealand, South Africa, or any of the other former crown colonies, not to mention Scotland and Wales. All of these might make interesting userboxes, and a case can be made for country cat (one for each) for the nations, but the regional categories have no useful function; people are not going to search through the "I speak New England" category when looking for someone with whom to work on an article. I chose the California one because I (mistakenly) believed that it was not a particularly controversial category with which to start. Horologium t-c 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Totally fer sure Mikebar 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who visit countries - Well, I suppose it could be more vague (Category:Wikipedians who visit places), but not much. - jc37 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the 4 subcategories. Millions of people have visited different countries, we don't really need to categorize this. "Wikipedians interested in country x" would be far more useful. I've visited Mexico and Canada, but I'm not interested in collaborating on those articles. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category and non-defining subcategories. Doczilla 09:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark. ElinorD (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. VegaDark nailed it. Horologium t-c 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 Join or die! 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad a category. Lots of people visit countries. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no conceivable collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disagree with the nom, visiting a certain place is actually less indiscriminate than a country :-). Malc82 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outstandingly fatuous. ← Roger → ^TALK 23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here, as correct forum for discussion, from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 13#Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I have no opinion on the merits of the request. Bencherlite 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - This follows the renaming of, for example, the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern article (as discussed here). The proposed name is both shorter and more precise. --rimshots^talk 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match article name. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Rimshots. Horologium t-c 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User rn
Category:User rn-N

"This user is a native speaker of Random Babbling." - This should be self-explanatory : ) - jc37 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice and salt. Babbling, indeed. Horologium t-c 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete both - Amazed this got past me for so long. VegaDark (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt est laborum eu tempor eexercitation. –Pomte 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phn'glui mglwnafth R'lyeh Delete fthagn wathgn.--7Kim 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without the unnecessary babbling. bibliomaniac 1 5 Join or die! 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ðëlété рĕŕ ńơm.--WaltCip 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete How is babbling going to help out Wikipedia? We're going to look like fools if we go around babbling... --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gibber gerrna - fluurgal urpts an ibbeya polllo retasss ratyp erna dinkut. (Strong Delete for all the above reasons. --Haemo 08:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Spoon~~ Delete, "native" makes no sense, how exactly can one be brought up randomly babbling? - Zeibura^(talk) 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no article on Lennonism; this category is, therefore, not useful for collaboration purposes. So, it should be deleted. Picaroon (Talk)

Delete or rename as Wikipedians who like John Lennon. Leaning towards the first, since the userbox is tied to Wikipedians by Philisophy, which is not quite the same thing as liking Lennon. (Leninist, anyone? A majority of the people in this category have userboxes identifying them as Leftist, Socialist, Marxist, or Communist. heh.) Horologium t-c 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, please. Come on. Saying you're "Lennonist" is no different from saying that you're a hardcore leftie.--WaltCip 02:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd almost say it's patent nonsense, but there is no deadline. YechielMan 06:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages since it will take almost no additional work than deleting it would. VegaDark (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somehow I just don't see this as useful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? If that is unanswered, delete. --Iamunknown 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike the mainspace, the userspace is not a politburo. Boldness before policy.--WaltCip 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one userpage, and most people won't care what your userpage looks like (some users don't even want one!) -- Hdt83 _Chat 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages. Consider renaming target cat as well; perhaps Category:Wikipedians requesting userpage guidance or something similar. Horologium t-c 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete Category:European Union Wikipedians and Keep the other two categories separate. See also: this userbox, and this userbox, and this userbox; and noting that they (or some such userbox) have also been subst: to userpages with one of the three categories, leading to the current confusion. When removing the category from userpages, the edit summary should probably note one or both of the other two as alternatives. - jc37 10:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy discussion moved from above: VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Union Wikipedians & Category:Wikipedians from the European Union -> Category:Wikipedians in the European Union (per Category:Wikipedians by location and Category:Wikipedians in Europe convention) --Iamunknown 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:European Union Wikipedians contains people who support the EU (((User:Hexagon1/EU))), and they do not necessarily live in the EU. –Pomte 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that User:Hexagon1/EU2 and User:Hexagon1/EU3 are similar. Then the original category name, "European Union Wikipedians", doesn't make much sense either. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union (per the Category:Wikipedians interested in a region convention). I'll move this down to a nom now. --Iamunknown 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done, see #European Union categories. --Iamunknown 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from the European Union → Category:Wikipedians in the European Union

Category:European Union Wikipedians → Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union

I listed these in the "speedy nominations" section earlier, but an editor pointed out that Category:European Union Wikipedians maintains a category for those who "support" the European Union. This is an inappropriate category, as it promotes diviseness (a category for those who "do not support" the European Union would also have to be created) and does not follow the "Wikipedians" naming convention. Thus I recommend moving it to Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union (c.f. Category:Wikipedians interested in a region), as both Wikipedians who support and do not support the European Union are, by default, interested in it. --Iamunknown 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as nom. --Iamunknown 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Union Wikipedians is already used in POV userboxes. It is useless to recreate it with a new name (and, presumably, migrate all the usages of it), when the same userboxes and the same users draw on it: it is the same POV grouping. Anyone interested in creating Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union is welcome to, but users who want to be categorized in it, and not the advocacy grouping, should move themselves of their own accord. Dmcdevit·t 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Wikipedians from the European Union and Category:Wikipedians in the European Union separate as they are (they're different things, a user may be from the EU but not be in the EU). Same for Category:European Union Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union, different things with perfectly clear meanings, no need to get them mixed up.--Hús ö nd 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is the "clear meaning" surrounding Category:European Union Wikipedians? I for one don't know what the criteria for inclusion is: are citizens allowed? supporters? opposers? those with interest? --Iamunknown 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category. Does not help Wikipedians create the encyclopedia. --Iamunknown 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Iamunknown 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Was planning on nominating this myself, T2 has long not been a speedy criteria, so this is essentially obsolete as well. VegaDark (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. G1 ggy! _{Review me!} 07:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are several categories which are suitable, but dont help build the encyclopedia, this one is just taking it too far. Regards --The Sunshine Man 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the issue is dead and the category is useless. —ptk✰fgs 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might be borderline reasonable if this were actually a current issue, but T2 is a year dead. Also, this will look to people who supported it like a "haha, we won" category. -Amarkov moo! 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Ryulong. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category. It does not help Wikipedia to know who does not like something. All similar categories have been deleted in the past, we have set enough precedent so stuff like this should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 10:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat description is "Understand AIM talk but don't like it anyway? You're at home here". We don't need a category for people who "understand AIM talk but don't like it". This is useless and also a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "not"-category. This seems to be a userbox that didn't need a category. - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, apparently it's a category that should have been a userbox : ) - jc37 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horrific user cat. I'm not even sure why they would even create such a category. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - encourages grouping of dislike, should be a CSD if we ever had it.--WaltCip 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the argument from negativity is weak; especially since the emphasis on not liking is both flippant and less than central. However, my devious and creative mind can concoct no plausible, farfetched, or even amusing argument for how this category enhances Wikipedia. :) --7Kim 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly useless category that doesn't help improve WP in any way—arf! 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vega has said everything that needed to be said ;-) «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another userbox with an accompanying category that should never have been created. Horologium t-c 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless babel categories. There will never be a Wikipedia written in Leet, and users will never have a legitimate reason to go looking for others in these categories. Hence, having categories for this is pointless. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I almost suggested Merging all to Category:User 1337, but after reading over Leet, this appears to just be a type of Substitution cipher, commonly used in concordance with internet slang. Shouldn't be a babel cat, and shouldn't use the babel naming convention. However, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a single category for usage/interest. - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The Babel categories should be used for serious purposes. Regular userboxes are more than enough for expressing love of the leet "language". nadav (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. First cut for a user category based on language: it must be a language that somebody somewhere actually speaks or signs (though I'll stretch that to include sufficiently notable dead or extinct languages). Navajo, Lakota, and Church Slavonic all make this cut. Even Quenya and tlhIngan Hol, arguably. 1337$p3ke? No. --7Kim 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeLEET ;-) Placeholder account 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|)31337 all, per nom and above reasoning-—arf! 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wonderful nomination. These categories are totally useless! «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Change to non-babel category (oh, and nice work there Arf!) G1 ggy! _{Review me!} 07:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C:/WIKIPEDIA/DATA/USERCATEGORIES/deltree Babel:1337 -nom--WaltCip 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. --CA387 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. Delete all. Horologium t-c 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a 1337 wikipedia would be cool. "th1s 1s t3h m41n p4g3 0f w1k1p3d1a 4 1337 p33ps." -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to get off-topic, but the folks on meta who deal with interlanguage development have decided that wikis in fictional languages such as Klingon have been unsuccessful and should not be continued. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most basic is that the whole wiki becomes like a garbage dump that kids like to play in but adults stay far away from. :) I suppose you could create a Leet subpage in your userspace. YechielMan 06:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:User 1337. Repaxan 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Marksmanship Ribbon. All the others are redlinks which don't have a deletion history, so, if nothing else, I couldn't determine if they had been tagged. - I'll be happy to modify this closure if someone would like to provide links : ) - jc37 10:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would set precedent for a category for every award/medal given out by every country's army, which we definitely don't need. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, or rename to something like Category:Wikipedian marksmen. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If delete, these categories should be depopulated:

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Afghanistan Campaign Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Armed Forces Reserve Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Service Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Iraq Campaign Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Korea Defense Service Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Kosovo Campaign Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: National Defense Service Medal

These medals have one article each, which do not themselves list the notable recipients, and there are quite a lot more of them, so I think they are better merged into Category:Wikipedian military people or appropriately named new subcategories.
Delete. I could seriously get behind a category called Category:Wikipedian decorated veterans, including a judicious number of subcategories for highly notable decorations, but not a category for every specific decoration. Even then, I would reject it if it focussed specifically on U.S. military veterans. --7Kim 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I personally qualify for more than one of these, and some of these are not really awards, per se. Everyone who was in the US armed forces since 11 September 2001 received the NDSM and GWOT service medal (except for those who received the GWOT expeditionary medal), and several others are not difficult to get. Additionally, as pointed out above, it opens the door to a flood of other potential cats, from all countries. Better to keep the more general "served in the army/navy..." categories, and save the awards for userboxen. Horologium t-c 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, only populated by deleted template. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the least useful user categories I have ever seen. And that's saying something. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (How about S&H Green Stamps? : ) - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - as empty, per creator's action. - jc37 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another useless category. We don't need to categorize users based on previous ownership of items. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Former ownership as a basis for a Wikipedian category would seem to be a bad idea. Possibly rename to Category:Wikipedians who play Atari 2600 games. Or perhaps create the latter category, and offer it to those removed from the former category. (For accuracy of inclusion.) - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the new category, but it seems that the creator of the populating userbox already removed the category. - jc37 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, only populated by deleted template. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Wikipedians who like Codename: Kids Next Door. Categorizing "Operatives" is nonsense. Only user in the category is already in the latter, so no need to merge. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though cute : ) - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Rename to Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers. - jc37 09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name speaks for itself. No joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers (or "...who love..." which is the other pet variant naming convention, and matches the category's introduction). - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Yeah, ok. D B D 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per jc37. "Who love" is less exact than "who own" in this case. –Pomte 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How useful is Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers and must we then accept Category:Wikipedians who own $BREEDs for every value of $BREED down to and including Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen and Labradoodle? Even though I don't think we need Wikipedians by ownership of dog breed I'd let it go by, except that the category name points more clearly to a joke than to a serious attempt to categorise Wikipedians in this way. --7Kim 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - with this name, there should be no one in the category (well...hopefully ;)) G1 ggy! _{Review me!} 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. MER-C 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per jc37, dogs are owned by people, it's only cats who can own people. DuncanHill 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename although cute Mikebar 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why is owning a dog breed an encyclopedic attribute which could help us out here? I own a cat, and I don't know boo about them beyond that they eat and throw up a lot. --Haemo 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the recently deleted "Wikipedians interested in general knowledge" category, this is potentially speedyable. Potentially all-inclusive and not useful. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a little different than being interested in general knowledge, but not much... - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again — perhaps we need "Wikipedians who suffer déjà vu" :-) Korax1214 08:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D - We have a list called List of Wikipedians. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per FayssalF. --7Kim 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above users. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy rename, uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SpamCop Users to Category:Wikipedians who use SpamCop per convention in Category:Wikipedians by software. Resurgent insurgent 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete xbox live, rename xbox 360. VegaDark (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox Live to Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox Live games
Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox 360 to Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox 360 games

Per such discussions as the one below.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename of Xbox Live, support rename of Xbox 360. Xbox live is an online service, and therefore there are not exactly "games" for the feature, as would be expected.--WaltCip 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Xbox live category, rename 360 category. Don't need a category for those who play Xbox live, a category for that would only facilitate collaboration on 1 more article than its parent category, so it is unnecessary. Don't upmerge, since both regular Xbox and Xbox 360 use Xbox live and there isn't any way to know which applies to each user. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename of Xbox Live, support rename of Xbox 360. - sounds good to me, per the reasons above. - jc37 09:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) - Oops, I meant to say Delete Xbox live. - jc37 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too.--Mike Selinker 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Xbox live, Rename XBox360. Horologium t-c 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated. VegaDark (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS games
Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo GameCube to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo GameCube games
Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo 64 to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo 64 games
Category:Wikipedians who play Wii to Category:Wikipedians who play Wii games

Per such discussions as the one below.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No "Nintendo" Wii? That would seem to go along with the rest of them. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other consoles, "Nintendo" does not appear to be part of the name "Wii". I think "play the Wii" is more correct than "play Wii", as in the article. –Pomte 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not "Nintendo Wii." --Mike Selinker 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea- Why don't we just go with the article name for all these game categories? VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Games" isn't really necessary. Some PS2 games are also Xbox games are also GameCube games. It's the console that's in the spotlight here. However, without "games" they'd need the article "the". Either way, go with the article name. –Pomte 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're juggling the joysticks or something, you're not playing with the console. It's merely a means to an end, ie. playing games. It's just shorter to say "...who play <console> games", than to say "...who play games on the <console>". (and we also avoid the "on" vs "using" debate : ) - Oh, and support using the most common name, which, presumably, should be the same as the article. - jc37 09:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going with the article names means following the nomination as is.--Mike Selinker 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was nuke from high orbit --Kbdank71 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Relisted due to additional tagging 2 days into the discussion) - jc37 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Wikipedians by number of edits
- Delete Category:Wikipedians with over 2,500 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 10000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 15,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 15000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 20,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 20000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 25000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 30,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 30000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 40,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 40000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 45,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 45000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 50,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 50000 edits
- Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 100,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 100000 edits

Note: "...5,000 edits" has already been deleted as empty by User:Anthony Appleyard. - jc37 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: Now all target categories listed, as well as Category:Wikipedians with over 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits, and Category:Wikipedians by edit count have been tagged with the proposition to delete all edit count categories being brought up. VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete as listed above, as nominator. - jc37 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Wikipedians by edit count, Category:Wikipedians by number of edits, and all subcategories in each except for Category:Wikipedian edit archive. These edit count categories are essentially useless, and have been deleted before without a DRV overturning the deletion since (so these are technically speedyable). If no consensus for this, merge as nominated (and delete all empty categories in Category:Wikipedians by edit count as well as Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, which is nearly all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from high orbit, burn at the stake, stomp and piss on the ashes, then delete. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotes a bad thing. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been waiting a while for this nomination, but I didn't have the guts to do it myself. All Wikipedians are equal, even if some have more edits than others. :) YechielMan 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note: Since the target categories are not tagged, they won't be deleted as a result of this discussion. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the remaining categories. VegaDark (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've relisted, since it's gone beyond the first day of discussion. - jc37 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Perhaps some useful purpose can be offered for ranking Wikipedians on number of edits, but I don't see it. Cred and staus in the Wikipedia community shouldn't be a matter of raw number of edits. --7Kim 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as inappropriate, but calmly. DGG 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Tough call for me, since lots of people seem to want these. But it's an abomination to use a neutral system to track users' supposed superiority over others. Leave the infoboxes for those who want to track their contributions, but no categories.--Mike Selinker 11:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially since there's no way to weigh many edits to tighten up grammar and punctuation against relatively few edits to produce good strong articles -- both kinds of contributions are valuable. "25,000 edits" is all but meaningless, and no ranking system should be based on meaningless data. I'd be concerned, too that promoting ranking on edit count encourages trivial or reckless editing, and may lead to excessive edit churn. --7Kim 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When it comes down to it these categories keep getting deleted and recreated over and over again and it is much more valuable to have them well-organized, uniform and easily located than to fool ourselves into thinking that editors don't keep track of the number of edits they make. I would also comment that putting a CFD notice on the categories will not lead to a concensus involving those in the categories, only those who patrol the deletion discussions hoping to "nuke" things that don't fit thier view of wikipedia as some kind of eutopia. I will be notifying those who requested this particular feature be added and I only hope that these are not deleted without the input of those in the categories. Adam McCormick 04:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I would also comment that putting a CFD notice on the categories will not lead to a concensus involving those in the categories..." - Well, as this is the process for all XfD (CfD/AfD/MfD/TfD/etc) discussions, you might want to find a relevant talk page or Village pump page to discuss that concern? - jc37 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Rereading the nomination it is proposed to consolidate categories, which is fine with me, the tags on some of these are wrong though. I would not support removing Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits as they both work with ((User contrib)) which is the source of this nomination in the first place Adam McCormick 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's also worth noting that the categories that users are assigned by using ((User contrib)) have many more users in them who are not showing up. Adam McCormick 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't been deleted? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these categories. They are against the spirit of a collaborative project and imply that having lots of edits has some inherent value. If they keep recurring, keep deleting them. Croctotheface 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

June 30

Category:Wikipedians with iPhones

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater

0-level categories

Category:Wikipedians who like manga & Category:Wikipedians who like anime

June 29

Category:Wikipedians Who Have Amd Sempron

Category:Wikipedians who visit U.S. States

Category:Wikipedians who think the many worlds interpretation is true

Category:Wikipedians who survived ROCS

Category:Wikipedians who summarize

Category:Wikipedians who remember the Canadian soldiers

Category:Wikipedians by Bible translation preference: English Standard Version

Category:Wikipedians Who Use Lifehacker

Category:Wikipedians who have visited all of the U.S. States

Category:Wikipedians who visit National Parks

Category:Wikipedians who believe True Love Waits

Category:Wikipedians who decline to state a party affiliation

Category:Wikipedians who do Bookcrossing

Category:Wikipedians who hike in Grand Canyon

June 28

Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians

Category:Kinky Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who wish not to be male

Category:Wikipedians who use Windows Live Mail

Category:Wikipedians who use KDE

Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe software

Category:Wikipedians who use SpamCop

Category:Wikipedians who play EVE Online

Category:Wikipedians who play Kingdom of Loathing

Category:Wikipedians who play Lineage 2

Category:Wikipedians who play Sega Genesis/Mega Drive games

Category:Wikipedians who use Rate Your Music

Category:Wikipedians who use Sputnikmusic

June 27

Category:Hanuman Devotee

Category:Wikipedians who are zombies

Category:Users of The Bat!

June 26

Category:Wikipedians with the knack

Category:Wikipedians who use Imperial measurements

Category:Meaning of Life Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal

Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher

Category:Wikipedians who want to Save Jeeves

Category:Wikipedians who want to live in Istanbul

Category:Mixed-handed Wikipedians

June 25

Category:Wikipedians with Cubes of Ultimate Power

Category:Wikipedians with Brain Cancer

Category:Wikipedians who use XMMS

Category:Wikipedian autodidacts

Category:Wikipedians who use Windows 2003

Category:Wikipedians who use Windows Server 2003

Category:Wikipedians by pet

Category:Wikipedians who are semi pro gamers

Category:Wikipedians who play table football

Category:Wikipedians who play alternate reality games

Category:Wikipedians who play Zone

Category:Wikipedians who support Amnesty International

Category:Wikipedian DC Downsizers

Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship

Category:Strict Wikipedians

Category:Self-educated Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who are ex-cadets

Category:Goth Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians by keyboard

Category:Wikipedians by internet access

Category:Wikipedians by peer-to-peer network

June 24

Category:Pyromaniac Wikipedians

Category:User cz

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music

Category:Skeptical Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedian zodiac skeptics

Category:Wikipedians who support the Jade Ribbon Campaign

Category:Wikipedians who support the World Food Programme

Category:Wikipedians who support Médecins Sans Frontières

Category:Burner Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedian Burners